bmetzler voted 1 on this story.
Nobody disagrees that it's a good idea to integrate internet support into the OS. It's a wonderful marvelous, spectacular idea! I think that all OS's should have internet access integrated. Actually, everything should be integrated.
But that's not the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft isn't being sued because they developed both an OS and a browser. They are being sued because, among other thing, they used their OS to force on OEMs a browser that the OEM's didn't want.The the Laws of the US, that was a crime.
Now, when you commit a crime, in the US you often lose rights that everyone else has. If a cracker commits a computer crime, they often lose the right to use a computer for many, many years. A those who commit other crimes may lose their freedom to go where they want (ie, be put in jail), and other thigns like make phone calls, play golf, and so on.
In Microsoft's case, because they used the OS and browser to break anti-trust law, they may lose the right to integrate the products in the future. This seems totally reasonable. Sure, it'll put them in a grave disadvantage against other companies, but normally, that's what happens when you break the law. I don't feel bad for a convicted killer when he doesn't have the same rights to do what he wants, like I do, and I won't feel bad for Microsoft either.
They should have had an anti-trust lawyer watch what they did, to keep them from breaking the law. Their actions were blatent, as found by the FoF, a competent lawyer would have easily pinpointed their problems. Then they wouldn't have had a lawsuit against them, and wouldn't be facing the removal of their rights.
www.bmetzler.org - it's not just a personal weblog, it's so much more.