Doug,
I think we're saying the same thing: That the court case should be about MS' illegal business practices not their getting a monopoly because of a 'better' product (Let's not discuss 'better' - that's been discussed ad nauseam.)

Now IF MS has been making deals that prevent companies from installing Netscape, Sun-Java, AOL etc. on the computers they build/sell then the courts are exactly the right place for Netscape, Sun etc. to go to fight the battle. However if everyone has Netscape and IE on their computers and only uses IE because it's a better mousetrap then Netscape has no right to complain.

And yes, I also have to agree about the present case (especially the ruling to break MS in half) being about their success, not about any illegal actions.

>Barbara,
>
>Thing is, modern business is war. Nasty, ugly, and sometimes illegal which should be punished vigorously in the courts.
>
>The trouble I see here is that Sun, Netscape, et al used the federal government to wage their battle rather than do it themselves. I suppose a case could be made that this is exactly when a government should step in and I'd tend to agree but in this case I also think that the goverment is also more than a little afraid of the power center moving from Washington, DC to Washington State. IOW, I do not think the government's motives were/are as pure as they'd like others to believe.
>
>This troubles me a lot as I see punishment of success displacing punishment of the abuse of the competative process.
>
>As the government's actions are all post facto they can do little about the future.
>
>Best,
>
>DD