MICROSOFT UPDATE. Jane Galt has discovered and reacted to a Scott Rosenberg column in Salon. Rosenberg is not happy with the decision. Jane Galt is not happy with Rosenberg's column. Here's what got her going:

"Microsoft chose to weave Internet Explorer code into the guts of Windows in a manner that served no conceivable user benefit but that helped Microsoft elbow Netscape out of the market."

I seem to recall that the Seattle dialect of Java played some part in the case, but I digress.

Here's her riposte to Rosenberg's main point:

"I repeat that you are not allowed to consider benefits to owners of companies that might be created or get more market share, because that's not what the law is designed to do; it's supposed to protect consumers, not corporations or even their employees.

Seems to me that the benefits are all out of proportion to the costs.

Rosenberg's argument is essentially "Yes, but if we look at the costs, we can't do anything about the scourge of Microsoft!"

Mmm-hmmm. And they think free-marketers are dogmatic?"

Leaving aside the point-counterpoint, it is by no means settled that the Sherman Act is supposed to protect consumers. "Throughout the history of these statutes it has been understood that their purpose has been to perpetuate and preserve, in spite of possible cost, an organization of industry in {small firms] that can effectively compete with one another." That's from the 1945 Alcoa ruling. More recent law has established that a dominant firm can compete on the merits of its product, but tweaking the merits runs the risk of committing intentional exclusion.

There is one aspect of this case that bothers me: what distinguishes a browser from an operating system? I admit to being somewhat less than current with computer architecture, but much of the dispute about browsers strikes me as an argument about whether to put the code in the main deck of cards, or behind the STOP card with the subroutines.