In this guest editorial at ZDNet, Jon “maddog” Hall of Linux International gives some advice to the Court with regard to a fair and just punishment for Microsoft. As is his habit, Hall expresses his opinions bluntly . . . and entertainingly. Hall writes . . .

“Recently I was asked about my thoughts on the recent turn of events in the Microsoft legal proceedings. Here's my answer:”

“First of all, I agree with the courts, in that the case was handled both well and poorly. On the poor side, Judge Jackson never should have made those inflammatory comments to the press. Nor should he have allowed his feelings to influence his decision, if indeed that was the case. His remarks inspire reasonable doubt, and our law says that reasonable doubt lands squarely on the side of the defendant.”

“Secondly, the major issue in the case revolved around Internet Explorer. I agree with Microsoft's stance that the browser should be part of the operating system — as tightly coupled as the OS allows. That way, the default interface for the OS would actually be the browser itself.”

“On a more positive note, the case was handled quite well in terms of the decision to divide the ruling into two issues: (1) Is Microsoft a monopoly? (2) If so, did Microsoft employ strategies to undermine other vendors and enter new markets?”

“I believe (and the courts found) that the answer to both of these questions is yes . . .”

Read full story

 
This article was originally published on LinuxDevices.com and has been donated to the open source community by QuinStreet Inc. Please visit LinuxToday.com for up-to-date news and articles about Linux and open source.