1.	So, as a software developer and a person with a sense of right and wrong, and a stake in its outcome, here's what I'd like to see come out of the browser war and the trial that resulted from it
2.	First, I do not want to see Microsoft penalized for the demise of Netscape. It's impossible to know to what extent Microsoft is responsible for that. Netscape played stupid and dirty, if they had executed even reasonably well, I believe they would have established a niche that Microsoft would not have been able to undermine.
3.	Further, Netscape blew a major opportunity with independent web developers, a powerful body of talent, who as a group did not and still do not see themselves as Microsoft developers. The opportunity that Netscape abandoned is still there. AOL would do well to stop disclaiming any interest in the browser, and get busy with the real work of building systems designed for web developers and their users. The court has encouraged irresponsible behavior on AOL's part, and as a member of the web developer world I do not appreciate this!
4.	Further, the HTML renderer, the software at issue in this case, definitely has a place in the operating system. As Microsoft has built software that depends on this, so have many developers, including my company. It helps the simplification process, both for users and for developers. The same skills apply no matter what software they're using. And the same code can run either from a remote server or from server software located on the user's hard disk. To force removal of the HTML renderer from the OS would be a major setback to the growth of the web, both as a medium for e-commerce, but also as a literary and journalistic medium.
5.	As a developer of software for both the Mac OS and Windows, I strongly believe that the Mac OS is at a disadvantage because it doesn't have system-level HTML rendering. To me this is the key test. I would prefer to see HTML rendering in the Mac OS, not have it taken out of Windows.
6.	So I think the best most positive conclusion is to require that Microsoft open up HTML rendering to other software, including Netscape's, but also to software from other developers. I want an API in place, and a system-level "Control Panel" that allows the user to choose his or her favorite rendering engine. Hardware OEMs must have a choice about how that is configured, and Microsoft must learn how to ship and support systems that allow the OEMs basic branding choices.
7.	To argue otherwise, on Microsoft's part, is disingenuous. Of course they can support systems that use Netscape's rendering engine. This is a responsible thing to do for their customers, many of whom would prefer to use Netscape's software over Microsoft's. Microsoft claims to be customer-driven, so let the customers drive. They want choice. Give it to them.