The evidence is not so much mounting as it is painting a very clear picture.

And the picture is that Microsoft has succeeded primarily on the basis of its strong arm tactics and their success has little or nothing to do with technology.  Unless you count the suppression of technology coming from other more innovative companies.

Just look around. Microsoft has bullied just about everyone in the industry.  Microsoft has disparaged the products of just about everyone in the industry.  In fact they did that again this week in court.  They claimed that Intel software was inferior.

This is not about researching and developing superior products that do better in the market place.  This is only about precluding everyone else from selling their products if at all possible.  It is equivalent to an athlete who always trips other players knowing that he will not always get caught.  Or, a card player who always cheats.

The history books are filled with examples of technology that Microsoft has either bought out or stolen or suppressed.  And, they have no problem with bullying everyone else.  If Netscape shows promise they threaten Apple with bankruptcy to force them to change to IE.  (Maybe they even invested that $150 million to help force that removal of a Netscape account.)  If Netscape is distributed by AOL, toss them a bone that only a monopolist can offer.  Drop plans for MSN if necessary.  Anything to prevent Netscape from having a market and paying their employees.  And, if Intel even thinks about software, threaten to not support their chips at all.  Whatever it takes.  Forget about laws dealing with "fair competition".  Forget about antitrust laws.  Forget about consent decrees.  Just ignore them all.  Make the government prove their case.  Lie, cheat and steal if you must.  But never exercise any acceptable business standards voluntarily.

In fact, Microsoft really thinks it is not necessary to write good reliable software if you can just force the sale of what you have.  That is obvious.

If you can force all consumers to buy IE, do it.  If you can force Apple to sell IE too, all the better.  If it can force AOL to switch away from a competitor, do that too.  And, if you need a reason for your competitor losing market share, just disparage their product and claim it is all their fault.

For Microsoft the only concern is that all consumers must be forced to buy IE.  No exceptions.

The needs and requirements of customers are simply not relevant. Even if they do not have a modem, it is more important to force the sale of IE upon 100% of the possible customers.

Sure.  Lie.  Tell them IE is free.  But any economist knows for a fact that a monopolist simply does not need to give anything away.  All economists know for a fact that a monopolist can simply bundle the lessor product and force the sale. There, it is done.  Everyone must buy it.  No need for a free product at all.

Why would anyone give away a product if they could force the sale?  I can think of no reason.

And, despite the lapse of memory claimed by Bill Gates, I doubt if he can either. Steve Ballmer has said very plainly that Microsoft does not give away software.  Why should they?  They do not have to. And, they have not.  And, they are not.  IE is a forced sale.  Period.

And, it is a forced sale for money.  Your money.

Every single customer for a personal computer (IBM or Apple) must in fact purchase IE.  And, money must be exchanged.  And, it is impossible for any customer not to buy IE.  (Unless you buy the parts and assemble them yourself or unless you do not buy any Microsoft product.)

Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.