Y. Minutes, July 18, 1994

Indeed, even Microsoft’s supporters concede that, “[a] year from now, [the proposed decree] will be” no more than “a blip on the radar screen of computing history.” William Casey, Why don’t we Prevent Overcoming Towards Microsoft, Washington Post, July 25, 1994, at F15. “Issued five years ago, the ruling would have had an effect. users were open to alternative environments, even if it meant migrating from [Microsoft’s products].” Id. “Those choices, and the years in which they could have been made freely, are ancient history . ” Id.

104 Get a hold of plus John Markoff, N.supra, at D1 (Ex. 24) (“The agreement leaves untouched what many computer industry executives say is Microsoft’s principal advantage — that it develops both the basic operating system software that makes personal computers run. and applications software. that performs specific tasks.”); id. (“The other important issue not specifically addressed in the consent decree is whether Microsoft has been able to leverage its virtual monopoly in operating systems into domination of applications software — a far bigger and more lucrative market”); Claudia Maclachlan, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, supra, at B1 (“As long as [Microsoft has] a dominant position in operating systems . it allows them to leverage that into applications. This agreement does nothing to the sums quo.”) (internal quotation omitted).

Y. 1993) (bloodstream screening tech);

105 Find, elizabeth.grams., Digidyne Corp. v. Data Standard Corp., 734 F.2d 1336, 1340-43 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. refuted, 473 U.S. 908 (1985); (software); Ortho Diagnostic Possibilities, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 145, 155-56 (S.D.N.Viacom Worldwide, Inc. v. Big date Inc., 785 F. Supp. 371,377 (S.D.N.Y 1992). Get a hold of plus Lee v. Lifetime In. Co., 829 F. Supp. 529, 537-39 (D.R.I. 1993), aff’d, 23 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.), cert. rejected, 1994 U.S. LEXIS 7596 (1994).

106 Select, e.g., David Einstein, S.F. Chronicle, July 18, 1994, supra, at A1 (Ex. 32) (Ernie Simpson, president of a software company which develops programs for use with Windows, called the decree “a waste of time”); Offer of your Few days, InformationWeek, Aug. 1, 1994, at 10 (Reacting to the proposed decree, Gordon Eubanks, CEO of software firm Symantec Corp., said simply, “That’s it?”); John Markoff, N.supra, at D1 (Ex. 24) (quoting Martin Goetz, cofounder of Applied Data Research, the nation’s first software company, as saying of the decree, “The Justice Department hasn’t listened to the cries of the software companies”); Jane Morrissey, PC Week, July 25, 1994, supra, at 1 (Ex. 26) (quoting Mitchell Kertzman, chairman of Powersoft Corp., as saying the proposed decree will have “close to zero impact,” and that “to the extent that Microsoft’s behavior prevented other operating systems from shagle free trial succeeding, the war is over . DOS is it and Windows is it”); Andrew Schulman, Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools, Oct. 1994, supra, at 143 (Ex. 13) (quoting spokesman for Compaq as saying “Windows is the standard–not much will change”). See and additionally David Einstein, S.F. Chronicle, July 18, 1994, supra, at A1 (Ex, 32) (quoting a leading industry analyst as concluding that “[t]he operating system wars are over — Microsoft is the winner . Microsoft is the Standard Oil of its day”); Claudia Maclachlan, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 1994, supra, at B1 (“As long as [Microsoft has] a dominant position in operating systems . it allows them to leverage that into applications. This agreement does nothing to the status quo”) (internal quotations omitted).

GARY L. REBACK (Club No. 218594) SUSAN A. CREIGHTON DAVID A good. KILLAM NEIL Meters. NATHANSON IRWIN R. Disgusting WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH ROSATI Elite group Business 650 Web page Factory Roadway Palo Alto, California 94304–1050 Cell: (415) 493-9300