[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Norris' trial testimony
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:18:06 -0400, Mitch Stone wrote:
>>Possibly the most damning testimony of the trial:
>>
>>http://www.msnbc.com/news/277875.asp
>
>The most recent wrinkle in the Norris testimony is his admission that, in
>the end, Microsoft did not get what it wanted from IBM. The government is
>now left with the task of demonstrating that it was illegal for them to
>try to intimidate IBM into not competing, as they can't really show that
>Microsoft succeeded in removing competitive products from the market -- a
>significantly weaker point. This makes it look like Microsoft was not
>operating the well-oiled steamroller portrayed by the government, but
>something more on the order of inept extortion racket. I would not be in
>the least bit surprised if Microsoft made that case.
IBM may not have agreed at that time, but if you look at what IBM
has done since you'll see that everything M$ wanted (and some of the
'quid pro quo') eventually came to pass.
Did IBM stop installing OS/2 on their own machines? ...YES! Did
IBM stop actively marketing OS/2? ...YES! Did IBM make windoze their
'company standard'? ...YES! Did M$ make NT source available to IBM for
IBM's NT software products? ...YES! Has IBM joined M$ to promote some
M$ products? ...YES!!
It's difficult to say what happened while Norris was trying to
work with M$, but what's telling is that damn near everything M$ wanted
IBM to do IBM has since been done. Norris may have not been privy to a
deal, but from where I'm sitting it sure looks like IBM finally caved.
>
>Ironically, it may take Microsoft to admit that Microsoft isn't as clever
>as most people think.
Naw, they're not clever enough to see that ;-).
--
...Cheers,
...Norm
***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject *
***********************************************