The <a href="http://www.theregisters.co.uk">Register</a> is covering the ongoing Microsoft trial, which has entered the penalty phase. As a bit of background, the states are basically proposing that Microsoft make Windows more modular, so that OEMs can distribute versions of Windows with other vendor applications replacing Microsoft versions. This seems to make sense and at least begins to address Microsoft's crippling monopoly on the desktop by allowing even the possibility that, upon purchasing a computer from a major vendor, one might open MP3 files in WinAMP or web pages in Opera, by default. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24504.html" title="Ballmer weeps for Windows - video clip">Ballmer weeps for Windows...</a> is one of the first of Microsoft's replies. Ballmer gave a deposition for trial on February 8 and has released the <a href="http://webcast.mediaondemand.com/microsoft/20020304/event.html">video</a> for all to see. That 8-minute video has been edited by Microsoft before release. <a href="http://www.zdnet.com">ZDNet</a> has been kind enough to provide the missing bits in <a href="http://video.zdnet.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=cnet_zdnet&template=playhiasf.html&query=%2A&squery=%2BClipID%3A0+%2BVideoAsset%3At030402_1600&inputField=&ccstart=9009&ccend=268821&videoID=t030402_1600&value=defaultz&which=1&override=http://video.zdnet.com:80/cnet_zdnet/template/override_config.js&overrideCheck=no&hdr=zd_vid_hed.gif&cont=mv">this video here</a>. In it, you can see this reptilian-looking creature dissembling as hard as he can and putting on a great show of having to be led along like a child when asked questions about his company's own products. You have to see it to believe just how sleazy this guy is. He must have taken lessons from Gates' own deposition of a few years ago. And also remember that this is piece Microsoft cut out. It's understandable that they cut it out, but don't forget that you're being spun. From the proposed solution of making Windows more modular, he extrapolates <iq>...'thousands to millions' of Windows versions the dissenting states would force the company to develop.</iq> This is pure foolishness and the fact that the president of a major corporation in an anti-trust suit can speak in this insane manner simply proves that large corporations like Microsoft have nothing to fear from governments. The next Microsoftie on stage is Microsoft attorney, Dan Webb in<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24489.html" title="Coming soon: 4,096 mutant versions of Windows">...4,096 mutant versions of Windows</a>. By this point, the <iq>millions</iq> of Windows versions have been pared down to a mere 4096. That number: <bq>... is based on there being ten middleware products which anyone who had licensed 10,000 or more copies of Windows could ... demand be removed from Windows. They could ask for all ten to be removed, they could ask for one to be removed, they could ask for any combination. This does not chalk up 4,096, of course, but Webb's argument is based on there being four versions of Windows, so it's 4x1,024. And no, it doesn't multiply up to 1,024 either...</bq> However, that's not the point. The fact that Microsoft's defense will compose mostly of denying products that they make and deliberately misunderstanding questions and proposals also doesn't matter. The point is that the states are asking Microsoft to make their software modular and better, which will simultaneously provide toeholds for competition. If Microsoft is right that Windows cannot be modularized in that way, then it is in fact held together with spit and a coathanger to a degree never previously imagined by even the most ardent MS hater. <bq>Webb ... may have a point when he claims that trying to disentangle Windows now would break it, but it's pretty clear whose fault that is, and if it's not stopped it'll only get worse, not better. The best defence ... would be to point out ... that it is not the place of the courts to benefit consumers by forcing companies to design decent software. This is, unfortunately, true, but we can see how Microsoft might have a slight problem arguing the point.</bq> Webb goes on to quote verbatim from Microsoft's alternate history of computing, detailing a belief in innovation from the very beginning, when the sordid story of IBM, Micrsoft and Q-DOS is more one of dumb-luck and dumb-ness (on IBM's part) than anything else. The last story here, called <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24504.html" title="Bill's vision for the future of the PC, c1980 - er, Xenix">Bill's vision for the future...</a> describes the anticipated contribution of Bill Gates to the trial, in which he will happily <span style="text-decoration: line-through">rewrite</span>recite computing history. In fact, even Microsoft, which increasingly tries to paint UNIX as a bit-player in computing history, was still using UNIX for most things, including development, well into the early 90's. From 1980 onward, Microsoft peddled its own version of UNIX, called XENIX. This was also used internally, as a former employee says: <bq>I think the original DOS might have been developed on one of their old VAX mini's but by the time I got there everything including DOS 2.x, all their languages and applications, Mac Word and Mac Excel, Windows Excel and Windows Word were written in vi and compiled on those goddamn Xenix boxes, and all their documentation was written in vi and compiled in troff and nroff. I don't think [they] really moved to the PC platform for development until around the time Windows 3.1 came out.</bq> Even recently, Microsoft has had to admit defeat in porting many of its larger server farms from BSD UNIX to Windows 2000. In the case of Hotmail, they've had to give up on the transfer entirely. Once again, don't be spun by Microsoft's version of events. Their argument that their contribution was intrinsic to computing history is not valid. The best argument to make is that their contribution is impressive considering the low-quality of their software in general. But that would only lead one to wonder "what make a company like that successful anyway?" And the answer that leaps most easily to mind is "A monopoly." So you can see why obfuscation is the best remedy.