Actually, I would assert that their motive is greed. That, in fact, is generally considered to be evil, or at least an evil. Certainly it's one of the seven deadlies.
It is a mistake to assert that Microsoft should go unpunished for using an unfair advantage to stifle competition. It's also a mistake to let them use the 'punishment' to further that unfair advantage. Further, I would suggest that the more or less expense-free distribution of their own software could in no way be considered punitive, though it might be restorative, to some degree. In any case, the commercial benefit to Microsoft (ala Internet Explorer V. Netscape) far outweighs the cost. That alone should give the courts great pause in allowing a settlement of this type.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I would assert that their motive is greed. That, in fact, is generally considered to be evil, or at least an evil. Certainly it's one of the seven deadlies.
It is a mistake to assert that Microsoft should go unpunished for using an unfair advantage to stifle competition. It's also a mistake to let them use the 'punishment' to further that unfair advantage. Further, I would suggest that the more or less expense-free distribution of their own software could in no way be considered punitive, though it might be restorative, to some degree. In any case, the commercial benefit to Microsoft (ala Internet Explorer V. Netscape) far outweighs the cost. That alone should give the courts great pause in allowing a settlement of this type.