The way the US courts are treating Microsoft is beginning to look like the way the Seattle giant develops its own products - different versions, continuous upgrades and patches to improve earlier versions.
Microsoft is able to claim victory because the US appeals has rejected breaking the company into two and has reversed a ruling that the company illegally attempted to monopolise the browser market.
It also rebuked Judge Jackson (who ordered the break-up of the company) because he made offensive comments about Microsoft officials outside the courtroom in public statements.
He called Bill Gates a Napoleon. This is a monstrous libel because Napoleon was defeated and captured by his enemies - something that is unlikely to happen to Bill Gates on present form.
Even though Microsoft has scored a tactical victory in several key areas, the judgment is still a serious indictment of the company.
To see this, just banish from your mind the charges the company has been cleared of and see what remains.
Microsoft was found to have violated section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by employing anti-competitive means to protect its Windows operating system.
There will be a new ruling on what penalties are appropriate.
The court found that Microsoft's exclusive contracts with internet access providers (IAPs) to promote its Explorer browser (at the expense of Netscape Navigator) were "exclusionary devices, in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act").
Although Judge Jackson was criticised for making offensive comments the court found "no evidence of actual bias".
It looks as though Microsoft has escaped the earlier court ruling of being broken into two companies - one running the Windows operating system which has a 95% market share as defined by the courts - and the other, all the remaining applications.
But in the topsy-turvy world of US court rulings no surprise should be entirely ruled out.
Microsoft's battle with the US antitrust authorities started in July 1994. It always knew that time was on its side.
As long as it spun the judgment out, it managed to retain custody of its ongoing monopoly profits and could argue, with some justification, that the underlying technologies of the market place were undermining its previous dominant position.
Its recent dash to achieve a powerful position on the web in the face of flagging sales of personal computers is seen by some as proof of the fashionable economic theory that dominant technological monopolies based on networks have only a limited shelf life before being overthrown by new technologies.
However, Microsoft knows these theories and is doing everything to ensure that it retains its monopoly position in the face of technological change.
The latest instance of this is the way it was planning to include new features in its forthcoming Windows XP operating system that would allow Internet Explorer to turn any word on a website into a link to Microsoft's own websites.
This week, in a well-timed act of humility, Microsoft bowed to the criticism (mainly from the Wall Street Journal) and shelved the planned features.
But it almost beggars belief that they could even think of doing such things at a time when the antitrust authorities were conducting an investigation on this scale.
Microsoft knows that the nature of the allegations against it are constantly changing. And it intends to stay ahead of the game.
Email
victor.keegan@theguardian.com
Related articles
29:06.2001: Appeal court halts Microsoft break-up
29.06.2001: How judge overstepped his brief
29.06.2001: The day the gods smiled on Gates
28.06.2001: US court reverses Microsoft break-up
Useful sites
US Department of Justice
The Microsoft Boycott Campaign
The Anti-Microsoft Association
Microsoft
