Barbara,

I think we are indeed essentially saying the same thing as well.

You know, this whole competition thing really facinates the heck out of me. You're right in that we both want Microsoft to obey the law. Having said that let me offer another scenario as a way of contrasting things a bit.

Do you have any experience with supermarkets and the whole process of shelving products? Essentially, each linear foot has an annual value, also depending on the vertical location of that shelf as well. Endcaps, particularly those at cash registers and eye-level shelves are the best locations. Vendors compete for shelf space and stores pay for that space. The competition is extremely fierce. For example, at the church I attend is a fellow who delivers a local brand of potato chip named Clover Club (actually bought out by a conglomerate if I recall). Anyway another company, Pepsi's brand (Laura Scudder?) has recently agressively moved on the local marketplace buy paying premium dollars for shelf space. One store apparently sold the space of Clover Club for some $40,000 pr year. The new company actually pays the supermarket for the priviledge of using that space. Anyway, their goal is to own 90% of all potato chip shelf space in Utah by year's end.

Now, is that really any different with the potato chip folks than with Microsoft?? Dunno...

Doesn't seem so to me in prioncipal anyway.

I'm sure not a lawyer but it still seems to me that Microsoft is being punished for being competitive. They do not compete to lose, nor should they. We should all compete to win, triumph, prevail and come out on top. I do not think we should so do illegally.

I honestly don't know the best way here but it sure smells to me. <g>

Best,

DD

>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