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

[Christopher Pall <christopher.pall@wmich.edu>]

Well, I'm not disagreeing with the integration of the Browser in the executable
sense, I'm not so sure how I feel about the DLL's being added and whatnot.
There is a certain value being added because of that, however this speaks
DIRECTLY to the difficulty to competing with someone that owns the OS. I can
never compete on selling a component with Microsoft. There is where someone
ought to sue. Noone can compete with Microsoft in that regard.

But I don't believe there is any reason that Microsoft should be able to
include the whole browser, kit-and-kaboodle, that's true, I wasn't very clear
at all in that last post. But I do want to still emphasis that this is not a
"browser" trial.

Steve Cohen wrote:
> 
> 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.