Reader's advisory: Wired News has been unable to confirm some sources for a number of stories written by this author. If you have any information about sources cited in this article, please send an e-mail to sourceinfo[AT]wired.com.
Despite Monday's ruling that Microsoft violated U.S. antitrust laws, industry watchers said it is likely to be business as usual in Redmond, Washington, for a long time to come.
Because Microsoft plans to appeal the ruling, the software giant and the government are likely to be locked in a legal battle that could last several years.
"Microsoft has said they will be bringing the case to the Supreme Court. We're looking at [at] least two years worth of legal battles here," said Dr. Wise Young, head of Rutgers' Collaborative Neuroscience lab. "By the time the case is decided, the way we use computers will be totally different. Today's ruling doesn't mean much in the real world."
David Anderson of Anderson Associates agreed. He said the software market is changing so rapidly that any ruling based on this decision will have no basis in reality when Microsoft reaches the end of its legal road.
Anderson said that operating systems may not even be an issue soon, since there is an increasing movement toward everything being stored on the Net rather than on users' desktops.
"Soon enough, all of our applications will be delivered through the Web, and the browser will be the operating system," said Anderson.
"Microsoft knows this and they are making strong movements into the managed-application or rental-application market. They are prepared for the future, but the wheels of justice grind slowly. By the time the court gets around to swatting the fly that is Microsoft, that fly will have landed elsewhere."
Harvey Jacobs of Jacobs and Associates, a law firm specializing in Internet law, has argued motions before Judge Jackson in Federal District Court and found him to be "quite a good and thorough jurist, very even tempered and careful."
Jacobs said that for those reasons it is difficult to say with certainly that Microsoft's appeal will be completely or even partially successful.
Jacobs also believes that by the time this case reaches final adjudication, Internet browsers and Internet connectivity will be a very different animal.
"In the long run, depending on the fines and/or remedies meted out, Microsoft may have lost the battle, but may well win the war. Remember, 'That which doesn't kill you will make you stronger," Jacobs said.
And Anderson said that future technology will enable Microsoft to do exactly what they got slammed for doing in the past.
For example, he said that in a browser-based application delivery market "deeplinking" would allow Microsoft to tie together the applications they choose to connect. The deeplinking technique recently received judicial approval.
Anderson also noted that Microsoft is investing heavily in alternative delivery systems such as wireless and cable access to the Net and hardware that turns TVs and game-playing machines into Internet access devices.
Dan Gorski, a senior analyst with Anthony Pagano Associates also said the ruling is a classic example of how antiquated the justice system is.
He disagreed with Assistant Attorney General Joe Klein's statement that the decision will benefit consumers and stimulate competition and innovation in the high-tech industry.
"Look at what's happened to Netscape in the two years since the justice department brought this latest case," said Gorski. "Microsoft has pulled well ahead of Netscape, it now has two-thirds of the browser market share, and only part of that can be ascribed to AOL compromising Netscape's competitive ability by pulling back on upgrades.
"Microsoft has done much of the damage that it set out to do. It's hard to see what penalizing them now can achieve."
