>And FWIW, having skill as a software developer means squat in this whole issue....

I disagree. Who else but a developer can tell you if an OS or a product allows or restricts innovation?

>Having an understanding of how to build a business app and how MS may or may not be in violation of US Anti-Trust statutes is a completely different thing all-together.. If it were only that cut and dry, this case would have been over in a matter of weeks.

I am of the opinion that MS broke the law with some of its trade practices. I am not of the opinion that giving a product away for free should be against any sort of law. I am of the opinion that the punishment should fit the crime- restrict MS' illegal practices. They are not a monopoly, if they were, Linux wouldn't be in the headlines at all.

>
>The fact is, you have slightly more than 100 years worth of case law being applied in a situation where the rules have changed immensely.

Agreed. The rules have changed so much, that virtually no case law applies. This industry moves an order of magnitude faster than any other industry, and the barriers to entry are next to nothing. There is NO case law that applies here.

>Further, this is why there is a big need in the legal/legislative community for attorneys and lawmakers that have a good understanding of the technology as well as a fundamental understanding of the business climate.

I am not sure this is possible. Where are you going to find a lawyer that has practical development experience in the current climate? If you find one, he hasn't been a lawyer for long, and if he has been a lawyer for long, his expereince is obsolete. It's a catch 22, IMO.

>Notice what I did not say - the ability to program. The ability would rank about last on the list of required skills to given an educated opinion in this arena..< s >.

I have stated why I disagree with this.

>By the way, the geek lawyer you refer to is Lawrence Lessig - THE reigning legal authority on law as it applies to both the constitution and the world of technology. If the gov't has only 1 choice for counsel, this is the guy. Put it this way, he earned is JD in 1989. He is a young guy, he has a clue.

I never meant to imply that he doesn't. Only that the guys making the decisions are lawmakers, and have only had the relevant facts relayed to them.

BTW, Lawrence Lessig has stated that breaking up MS is the wrong way to go. He thinks that Specific restrictions should be applied. I agree.