E would also be loaded in one fashion or another. Another key issue was that Microsoft would not release enough code for other firms to fully synchronize their programs with Windows. However the government’s main focus was on alleged marketing and contractual practices used to bully and undermine other companies and technological advances (Moeller). The marketing ploys included “vaporware”, the announcement of software for sale before it is written (Cook); the idea of having an application written by a company that has access to complete OSS code is very appealing to most people, myself included.As I have mentioned, the government had both a strong and a weak point. The issue of bundling is inherently weaker, because if another company’s program is so far above Microsoft’s, then people will usually seek it out. I agree with the Appellate Court that this is free market enterprise. The other issue, OSS market dominance, has shown itself to be the heart of MS’s worries and for good reason. Many instances of “commanding” requests from both friend and foe alike have come out in the latter part of the trials; Microsoft has always been careful not to make demands.Now as 2001 draws to an end Microsoft and the DOJ have agreed to settle. All that is left is to finalize the deal on paper. Microsoft will not be broken up and, in my estimation, will continue to dominate the OSS market and much of the business application market for some time to come. As Windows XP is released and flies off the shelves, I see more lawsuits in the Bill Gates’ future due to the expansive scope of the new OSS’s features. With partially to fully integrated radio, television, photo editing, email, and instant messaging, he is pulling the tails of the tigers such as Eastman Kodak, AOL-Time Warner, and cable and network television stations (Chinni). As Microsoft adds more and more features to its OSSs it will becom...
