IP: NTK on Gates' Anti-Breakup Arguments...very interesting insight.

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: "Rob Raisch" <info@raisch.com>
>To: "Dave Farber" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:55:44 -0400
>
>
>          A hushed public awaits: and, in the pages of Time magazine,
>          Bill Gates puts THE CASE FOR MICROSOFT. But years of
>          conviction play with a man's recollection. Every every one
>          of Bill's arguments points to the company's guiltiest
>          moments. With a split Microsoft, he begins, a future MS
>          "tablet PC" with handwriting recognition would not exist,
>          because Microsoft's OS and App developers need "real-time
>          collaboration" to pull it off.  But MS had designs on a
>          "tablet PC" before: when they wrote Pen Windows, a
>          piece of FUDware designed to kill Jerry Kaplan's GO.
>          Back then, Microsoft bristled at any suggestion that their
>          OS and App departments colluded. Now the party line is that
>          it's vital for the consumer. In 1991, Gates goes on to
>          explain, MS Office developers invented the toolbar. "Had
>          toolbars been created elsewhere, they no doubt would have
>          been patented and never incorporated into Windows [as the
>          taskbar]". How very true: except toolbars *were* invented
>          elsewhere. In MacPaint. In 1984. At that point, Gates
>          entered into a secret agreement with Apple to use
>          Mac-ish features in the Windows OS, in return for developing
>          apps for the Mac (no monopoly here: yet). Moving to modern
>          day concerns: Bill says that the DOJ scheme would slow down
>          innovation, impeding "Windows updates that could protect
>          against attacks like the Love Bug virus". As opposed to now,
>          when Microsoft denies liability for the jelly-weak security
>          of Outlook? Gates end with his own horrific vision,
>          post-Microsplit: Apps and OS mini-Bills that could never
>          work together, because the DOJ demands that "no technical
>          information can be discussed that is not 'simultaneously
>          available' to the entire computer industry - which would be
>          a practical impossibility". An impossibility, of course,
>          which open source projects - and hell, most of the rest of
>          the industry - manage every day.  Except, that is, when
>          Microsoft sues for publishing MS's proprietary extensions to
>          their work. And this is the case *for*?
>          http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,44557-2,00.html
>              - well, that is where my theory just falls to the ground
>          http://www.headgap.com/~macstar/macpaint/About_MacPaint.html
>                - cute pictures of old Mac apps to take bad taste away
>          http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/04-27tv2.asp
>                                           - this isn't helping, is it
>          http://www.ntk.net/2000/05/12/dohlove.JPG
>                                            - the smoking gun! (see centre
>right)
>
>From...
>  _   _ _____ _  __ <*the* weekly high-tech sarcastic update for the uk>
>| \ | |_   _| |/ / _ __   __2000-05-12_ o join! mail an empty message to
>|  \| | | | | ' / | '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ / / o ntknow-subscribe@lists.ntk.net
>| |\  | | | | . \ | | | | (_) \ v  v /  o website (+ archive) lives at:
>|_| \_| |_| |_|\_\|_| |_|\___/ \_/\_/   o     http://www.ntk.net/
>
>--
>Rob Raisch - lead analyst @ www.raisch.com
>Muscular Business Intelligence