Re: Microsoft: OEM choice would be a "disaster"

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Christopher Pall wrote:

> Well, I wouldn't concentrate on this one word.
>
> What's strange is the character of this response. It's all italics, bolded and
> hyphenated in strange places. It's a clearly meant to be overly dramatic and
> sweeping. It looks like some sort of piece of SPAM to put it bluntly.
>
> I have to agree with Microsoft here. This is a bad tangent for anyone to argue
> with Microsoft on. While we all agree that Microsoft ought to give the OEM more
> control over certain aspects of the OS, especially the layout of the desktop.
> (didn't the OEM buy the software, hence they can do whatever they want with it?
> anyway)
>
> Another reason anyone should stay away from attacking Microsoft technically, is
> simply because they own that game. You don't go play that game with them
> because they simply make it so hard for you to compete. Play a territory
> neutral game like anti-trust which you know better anyway.
>
> Let's again hammer away on two very key aspects here that we've been falling
> behind on
>
> a) This is a trial based on established anti-trust law. The DOJ is not out to
> set standards in the OS business, nor tell Microsoft how to write software.
> This is all a big ole Microsoft FEAR smokescreen everyone falls for.
>
> b) This is not a trial based on the browser industry. This has been going on
> since at least '93, possibly as early as '85. Just ask crazy  Bob Metcalf.
>
> Brett Glass wrote:
> >
> > At
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/dec98/12-7farber.htm
> >
> > Microsoft claims that "Mr. [David] Farber's suggestion that OEMs should
> > decide which components of Windows they deliver to customers would be a
> > disaster for consumers and software developers alike."
> >
> > In other words, Microsoft believes that the company from which you buy a
> > system shouldn't be  allowed to differentiate its products or choose which
> > software components come with it. This, in turn, means that consumers
> > cannot choose.
> >
> > For whom would choice be a "disaster?" Only one company: Microsoft.
> >
> > --Brett Glass

NO, Chris!  Brett is right!

Microsoft's whole defense is based on the fact that they NEED to integrate
everything into the OS.  All these witnesses may want this and that but only
Microsoft has the technical knowhow to know the right way to do these things.
It's all bullshit of course, as we all know.  Integration into the OS is a
marketing ploy and nothing more and it's bad engineering to boot.  Establishing
that it's bad engineering reinforces the claim that it's done for marketing
reasons.

As for the italicization and all that, I think it shows how badly Microsoft needs
to discredit this witness.