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

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Christopher Pall wrote:

> While I agree with you completely that the entire browser being included is
> anit-competitive, there is a a fine line to define here about what the DOJ
> needs to prove. The DOJ doesn't need to make a good case against the browser
> being included. It needs to prove that the browser was included to destroy
> Netscape....
>
> (that comment about cutting off Netscape's air supply comes to mind)
>
> Steve Cohen wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > You are so right.  Mr. Farber's testimony is the first that hits my central
> > concerns when I first began to take a strong interest in this case. I hope
> > he's got the sort of personality that won't wilt under the heavy
> > cross-examination he is already coming under.

Yes, we are in agreement.  My point is not that Microsoft should be sued for bad
engineering (at least not by the DOJ, maybe customers hurt by it could have some
standing to sue somehow).  It is that Microsoft's claims that its tactics and
bundling decisions are dictated by engineering necessities are bogus.  The point
is PRECISELY that the browser was included to destroy Netscape.  The point of
Farber's testimony is to knock this leg of defense out from under Microsoft.  The
point about bad engineering is merely emphasis ... not only isn't it necessary,
it's not even good engineering.  That is the point.