I've been following Rosen, too, and what I don't get is: what does Microsoft hope to have Rosen prove by saying that James Barksdale told him Netscape did not intend to compete with Microsoft on the Windows 95 brows-, err, I mean, client?
If Barksdale told Rosen that Netscape did not intend to compete with Microsoft on the Win 95 client and to retreat to Netscape's alleged "core competency" in the server area, all that proves is that Netscape perceived Microsoft's market power to be so great that Netscape wanted to get out of the way so as not to be destroyed by Microsoft's predatory tactics -- and that Rosen was, to quote Bill Gates in another e-mail Gates probably doesn't remember, "naive" about Netscape's intentions.
In my view, admittedly from afar and based on oncomplete media reports, proving that Barksdale (or anyone else from Netscape) told Rosen that Netscape did not want to compete with Microsoft helps the government, not Microsoft.
That Netscape wanted to stay out of Microsoft's way should be readily apparent to anyone who read Netscape's annual reports or attended Netscape's annual meetings in the 1996-97 time frame, when Barksdale would stand up and go on and on about Netscape's strategy to diversify the company away from the brow-, err, I mean, client, and avoid competing directly against Microsoft in this, or any other, area, if possible.
And if there really is anyone who thinks Netscape did not perceive Microsoft to be a competitor from the very beginning, they need only look at the proxy statement that accompanied Netscape's IPO. In that document, as most on this thread will recall, Netscape devoted an entire section specifically to Microsoft.
Granted, these observations and documents post-dated the 1995 time frame Rosen was talking about. Still, they are relevant, and I fail to understand how Rosen's claims about Netscape's perceptions and intentions in this area help Microsoft at all, or even pass the laugh test.
I certainly do not have the whole picture of Microsoft's strategy and how Rosen fits in, so, if anyone wants to explain it, please feel free. However, as I said before, I find Rosen's testimony bizarre. There is simply no other word that adequately describes how they handed this witness over to the wolves. |
