 |
danbricklin.com/log
|
|
|
By Paragraph
|
Commentary on the text
Here's where I point out interesting things about the Findings of Fact.
By Paragraph
msdojbypara.htm
|
|
|
Here are some comments on particular paragraphs in the judge's Findings of Fact that I noticed and found of interest. (Not to slight any other paragraph...I have not read the whole thing, yet. Pages refer to the PDF version.) This is based on some quick notes I took in skimming through the document to have ready for press calls and other conversations and on how much time I felt like spending reading and typing.
Paragraph 18 (page 6)
An important point here is that the judge talks about a "significant period of time". Microsoft must feel that eventually somebody could make a better one. The question is what is the judge's timeframe?
Paragraph 23 (page 9)
The judge buys Microsoft's argument in the business press: PCs will not be supplanted by Information Appliances. "...most of those who buy information appliances will do so in addition to, rather than instead of, buying an Intel-compatible PC system." Now he talks about the "foreseeable future" -- how long is that? In the following paragraphs he goes on to knock the Network Computer concept, just as Microsoft did in the press.
Paragraph 27 (page 12)
In discussing Server-Based Computing, the judge says: "Again, that day is not imminent; for the next few years..." So, the judge's timeframe is the next few years. Microsoft's timeframe is clearly longer than that. In the next few paragraphs, the judge switches between "several years" and "few years" as his timeframe.
Paragraph 34 (page 16)
Here the judge lists three main facts that "...indicate Microsoft enjoys monopoly power." They are: Large market share, protected by high barrier, with no viable alternative.
Paragraph 74 (page 38)
The judge says that "...the Java class libraries do not expose enough APIs to support the development of full-featured applications that will run well on multiple operating systems without the need for porting..." This is Microsoft's arguments to developers about how the Windows APIs are better than Java's.
Paragraph 166 (page 82)
Quotes Allchin saying being free isn't enough: "...once people are used to a product it is hard to change them. Consider Office. We are more expensive today and we're still winning. My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more."
Paragraph 167 (page 83)
Maritz decides to delay the release of Windows 98 until Internet Explorer 4.0 was ready, disappointing OEMs.
Paragraph 193 (page 93)
The judge, in calling Microsoft's argument about binding the browser to the operating system for system integrity reasons "specious", notes "...Microsoft itself precipitates fragmentation of its platform by continually updating various portions of the Windows installed base with new APIs. ISVs have adapted to this reality by redistributing needed APIs with their applications in order to ensure that the necessary APIs are present when the programs are launched." This does not sound like a judge who misses some of the subtleties of our industry.
Paragraph 226 (page 112)
In regards to Microsoft's argument that it keeps OEMs from modifying Windows to prevent its platform from being fragmented, like UNIX, the judge notes: "...Microsoft itself creates some degree of instability in its supposedly uniform platform by releasing updates to Internet Explorer more frequently than it releases new versions of Windows...More important is the fact that none of the modifications that OEMs are known to have proposed making would have removed or altered any Windows APIs."
|
|
||
|
© Copyright 1999-2018 by Daniel Bricklin
All Rights Reserved.
|
|||