'From this I get the distinct impression he really believed Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong and things like bundling a browser with the OS were just "innovations";'
I can't tell from the quote what your stance on this is, but I think history vindicates the viewpoint you ascribed to Gates.
Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without an OS today? The idea is ridiculous. Doesn't that then make Gates/MS' decision in this area innovative and forward-looking?
For some reason there is always common confusion between legally having a monopoly/monopoly power and abusing a monopoly/monopoly power.
The problem wasn't that MS was bundling a free browser. The problem was when Microsoft forced PC builders to not only include Internet Explorer but explicitly forbid them from including another browser as part of their offering.
Additionally, Microsoft artificially integrated IE into Windows and then tried to claim that the two were designed to work together. It was easily demonstrated that Windows continued to work fine after un-bundling IE.
I'm with you on this. I really think the DOJ went after Microsoft for wrong thing. It would have been better if they had gone after the bundling agreements where Microsoft got paid for every machine shipped regardless if a Microsoft os was on it. Or the buy Office and get a discount on Windows. Netscape had better lobbyists not a better case.
"Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without an OS today" should read "Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without a browser today".
I can't tell from the quote what your stance on this is, but I think history vindicates the viewpoint you ascribed to Gates.
Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without an OS today? The idea is ridiculous. Doesn't that then make Gates/MS' decision in this area innovative and forward-looking?