I have come to the conclusion that there are five viewpoints on the Microsoft vs. DOJ antitrust trial.  Let me digress from the real issue for a moment and talk about what people think.  For the record, this is very long, so if you don't feel passionate about the trial, don't waste your time.

Viewpoint One:  Info-Tech Purist

This person believes that the tech industry should not be regulated.  The government has no say in technology advancement; it should be left up to the companies and the market.  Basically let companies do whatever they want to in the heat of competition.  They often feel that the best products end up being the most popular ones.

Viewpoint Two:  Microsoft Supporter

This person is upset that the government is accusing Microsoft of breaking the law.  Usually they cite other companies that the government should be taking to court.  Usually this person thinks that people are just jealous of Bill Gates.  They feel that Microsoft can do whatever it wants to with its products.  Frequently, this person states that Microsoft's products must be the best since more people use them.

Viewpoint Three:  Anti-Government

This person believes that the whole trial is a fabrication of the government.  The Department of Justice is going on a power trip. They now want more funding on top of it all.  Microsoft is everyone's favorite enemy, so to gain support from the public, they are suing Microsoft.  Most of these people believe that the government simply wants more control over the public.

Viewpoint Four:  Microsoft is Guilty

These people believe that Microsoft has, in fact, broken antitrust law.  Most of them are quite familiar with Microsoft's products, primarily through their jobs.  They seem to agree with the concept of antitrust as currently defined, and feel that it is applicable in the tech sector.  Many also think that this trial is the best way to encourage true competition in the desktop OS market.

Viewpoint Five:  Middle Ground

This person doesn't favor either Microsoft or the government.  Sometimes, this person is undecided about the trial.  Usually, this person is not a Microsoft supporter, so they tend to decide things based on what they have heard in the media.  They don't believe that Microsoft is the Evil Empire, but they feel like something does need to be done.

Most opinions are a combination of two viewpoints.  I feel that the people with the most facts are of viewpoint four.  The people with the most emotion are of viewpoint two and three.  I base my feelings on what I have read during the discussion of the trial.  For example, people who have been supportive of Microsoft rarely quote trial testimony, depositions, or company emails to provide support for their reasoning.  People who support the government, however, have been able to do so.  People who support Microsoft are quick to talk about such-and-such other company and how they are monopolies.  Realize that this is pointless; it matters not if another company qualifies as a monopoly, they are not on trial, Microsoft is.  "Someone else did it first" or "someone else does it too" are never legal justification for breaking any law.

I hope this incites better discussion between all of us tech-heads.  I myself don't hold personal dislike toward any Microsoft supporter.  What really angers me is when they don't cite outside information to support their position.  To me, an opinion is only as good as the facts it is based on.  That's why before I make my opinion more solid, I try to educate myself on the issues.

I have read about antitrust law, why it came about, what it attempts to accomplish, and the whole theory behind it.  I understand what they say and agree with it.  I read various witness depositions, company emails, and the testimony that was based on what I read.  I read the timeline of the trial, how it all started many years ago.  I have seen Information Technology mature over the years, and Microsoft's impact on that maturation.  I read about each of the government's claims against Microsoft, their analysis of what Microsoft has done and what has resulted from those actions.  I have even read several articles written from the pro-Microsoft viewpoint.  Finally, I have read and posted countless Talkbacks on the subject, which I feel has only strengthened my understanding of the situation and of what people think about it.

All this I have taken into consideration when forming my opinion.  How many of you have put all that time and thought into your opinions?  It is so easy to say what is on one's mind; it is much harder to think about what is the best way to say it.  For me, the best way is to be sure that what I am saying is fact.  Fact cannot be disputed, it can only be ignored.  Text from Microsoft email is *fact*.  The botched video demo is *fact*.  Windows and Internet Explorer being separable is *fact*. Consumer harm proof not being necessary is *fact*.  Not understanding fact is forgivable; disagreeing with fact is intentional stupidity.