The government said Gates personifies everything wrong with the company, ... I infer from that if Gates has a smaller role in the company and Ballmer has a bigger role, that is a somewhat more suitable environment for achieving an agreement.
You can count on one hand the big monopolization success stories; you can count on more than one hand the failures,
It creates somewhat of a more positive environment for negotiations, because the government has made this a personal case.
This is the first time going back to 1890 in which the key assets of the company to be broken up consist of human beings and ideas. Who can predict what these people will do, and how effective the entities will be?
I would be surprised if there are no discussions. But the intensity and fruitfulness of the talks will depend on how Jackson writes his findings of fact. He would have to give each side something to worry about.
It shows the ruling is basically going to be the government's proposed order, consisting of a two-way split and interim remedies.
I think in many ways, Microsoft has planted some seeds of doubt about the government's hypotheses,
Norris, more than anyone else, showed how difference in royalty terms reinforced Microsoft's control over equipment suppliers,
The thing the dealmakers tend to look at is: 'what did the guy ahead of me in line have to pay to get through?'
Each side will be describing a different planet.
