Subj:	 New reports: What they said, what they left out.
Date:	99-11-11 19:52:46 EST

I looked at Microsoft's website where they reported the news
of the Judge's MicroSoft Anti-Monopoly report.

They said pretty much nothing whatsoever about the actual
contents of the report, other than quoting possibly the
only paragraphs in a 208 page report that, when taken out
of context, implied that Microsoft might have done something 
good.

Whether or not you agree with the Judge's facts, this ought to 
point out the extremes that the media forms with self-interest 
will go to mislead people by quoting things out of context.  
(In this case, "Microsoft News".) 

So I thought it would be funny to show what they quoted and 
put it BACK INTO CONTEXT.

I decided on this before even reading the actual context myself.
Given the way the report reads, it was a safe assumption that
just about any context would make anything pro-Microsoft seem
terribly out of place.

 - Daz

--- What they quoted: ---

408. The debut of Internet Explorer and its rapid improvement gave Netscape an
incentive to improve Navigator's quality at a competitive rate. The inclusion of
Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate charge increased general familiarity
with the Internet and reduced the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least
in part because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These
actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing software,
lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, thereby benefitting consumers.

--- What the left out: --

409. To the detriment of consumers, however, Microsoft has done much more
 than develop innovative browsing software of commendable quality and offer it
 bundled with Windows at no additional charge. As has been shown, Microsoft
 also engaged in a concerted series of actions designed to protect the applications
 barrier to entry, and hence its monopoly power, from a variety of middleware
 threats, including Netscape's Web browser and Sun's implementation of Java.
 Many of these actions have harmed consumers in ways that are immediate and
 easily discernible. They have also caused less direct, but nevertheless serious and
 far-reaching, consumer harm by distorting competition.

 410. By refusing to offer those OEMs who requested it a version of Windows
 without Web browsing software, and by preventing OEMs from removing
 Internet Explorer -- or even the most obvious means of invoking it -- prior to
 shipment, Microsoft forced OEMs to ignore consumer demand for a browserless
 version of Windows. The same actions forced OEMs either to ignore consumer
 preferences for Navigator or to give them a Hobson's choice of both browser
 products at the cost of increased confusion, degraded system performance, and
 restricted memory. By ensuring that Internet Explorer would launch in certain
 circumstances in Windows 98 even if Navigator were set as the default, and even
 if the consumer had removed all conspicuous means of invoking Internet
 Explorer, Microsoft created confusion and frustration for consumers, and
 increased technical support costs for business customers. Those Windows
 purchasers who did not want browsing software -- businesses, or parents and
 teachers, for example, concerned with the potential for irresponsible Web
 browsing on PC systems -- not only had to undertake the effort necessary to
 remove the visible means of invoking Internet Explorer and then contend with the
 fact that Internet Explorer would nevertheless launch in certain cases; they also
 had to (assuming they needed new, non-browsing features not available in earlier
 versions of Windows) content themselves with a PC system that ran slower and
 provided less available memory than if the newest version of Windows came
 without browsing software. By constraining the freedom of OEMs to implement
 certain software programs in the Windows boot sequence, Microsoft foreclosed
 an opportunity for OEMs to make Windows PC systems less confusing and more
 user-friendly, as consumers desired. By taking the actions listed above, and by
 enticing firms into exclusivity arrangements with valuable inducements that only
 Microsoft could offer and that the firms reasonably believed they could not do
 without, Microsoft forced those consumers who otherwise would have elected
 Navigator as their browser to either pay a substantial price (in the forms of
 downloading, installation, confusion, degraded system performance, and
 diminished memory capacity) or content themselves with Internet Explorer.
 Finally, by pressuring Intel to drop the development of platform-level NSP
 software, and otherwise to cut back on its software development efforts,
 Microsoft deprived consumers of software innovation that they very well may
 have found valuable, had the innovation been allowed to reach the marketplace.
 None of these actions had pro-competitive justifications.

-- --

Btw... if you think #410 above looks so strong that Microsoft shouldn't be quoting
from near it, don't be suprised.  Pretty much the whole report reads like that!

Of course, the only reason the Judge pointed out good things in 408 is because 
he thinks that competition is good for the consumer and was pointing out how
such competition is good UNTIL the stuff in paragraphs, ummm.., roughly
36-407 and 409-last happen.

Also shows how careful you have to be to not let them get a misleading "sound
bite" out of you no matter how firmly you make your point. (See the Babylon 5 episode: 
"Illusions of Truth".)