Joseph Rosenblatt writes,

> The article says:
> The government also charged Microsoft tried to bully other
> companies. In
> other portions of his ruling, Jackson said Microsoft's actions harmed
> consumers and it used its power to punish any firm that could
> intensify competition.
>
> Draw your own conclusions.

While I agree that Microsoft wielded great power, so did IBM, as did quite a
few other companies.  What I will not agree with is that no other player could
compete.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Someone could build a better
mousetrap.  In this case, someone could build a better OS than Windows (could
that be Linux?  who knows?)  Yes, marketing has a lot to do with it - and
AOL/Netscape have deep pockets too (when it comes to the browser).  The others
have done their share of bullying as well - no one is innocent.  No one bullies
AOL, for example.  Netscape was in a precarious position and hence the
AOL/Netscape/Sun deal.  The combination of these three could easily stand up
to, and stare down, Microsoft.

This is why I stand by what I said earlier -- it will be appealed on several
grounds.  Evidence which apparently should have been introduced, was not, and
although I won't go so far as to say the judge was biased as I could never
prove that, but there were suggestions from reputable news agencies and other
legal circles, that the judge was not a big fan of Microsoft to begin with.

Sure, if someone comes out with a browser that trounces MSIE, and does what
MSIE does (using APIs, and not plagarizing code), one of two things will
happen... Microsoft will try and eliminate them, or buy them.  How many other
companies would do the same?  Take a look at other industries today and you
will see similarities.  I'm not saying this suit was right, wrong or
whatever -- but I do see Microsoft appealing