Just reading through the judge's conclusions, and I came across the following:

"The same lack of justification applies to Microsoft's decision not to offer a browserless version of Windows 98 to consumers and OEMs, id. ¶ 177, as well as to its claim that it could offer "best of breed" implementations of functionalities in Web browsers. With respect to the latter assertion, Internet Explorer is not demonstrably the current "best of breed" Web browser, nor is it likely to be so at any time in the immediate future."

Here we have written proof that Judge Jackson really has no idea what he is talking about. IE4 was at least comparable to Netscape 4, if not better, and IE5 so greatly superior to anything Netscape has released. To state the Microsoft, in including IE in Windows 98 etc, was forcing people to use a poor product is total, utter nonsense.

If IE sucked so bad, people would have just downloaded Netscape Navigator for free and been on their merry way. I've done that several times with no problems whatsoever. The problem is that once Microsoft got IE to the point where it achieved functional parity with Netscape, users had no real reason to download Netscape. Those that really wanted to, for reasons of personal preference, could go ahead and do so.

I could write more, but I'm beginning to feel really feel sick...