As a professional software developer though, I get a pretty horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach when I picture a lawyer telling a judge, and then the judge telling Microsoft, what steps they must take in redesigning their products.

And for what purpose?

Square one: The point is, the states and the DoJ say Microsoft abused its market power by illegally forcing Netscape out of the browser market; Microsoft is trying to say they didn't. The purpose is in trying to PROVE that. I don't the Judge, the Jury, the DoJ, the States, or most people here want to tell M$ how to design their software. It's how they do business that's gotten them in trouble.

Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to allow third parties to replace Windows components?

Maybe not, maybe so. If the Windows API were open, perhaps that could happen sanely. Heck, we have all kinds of hardware that interacts directly with the kernel with its own software... However, isn't it my problem if I do? Still, that's not the point.

Shouldn't Microsoft have the right to dictate at least the initial end-user configuration of their products?

Shouldn't I have the right to purchase a PC with or without whatever I damn well please on it? Hell, >I'M< the one >PAYING< for it!

I don't particularly care how deeply M$ comingles stuff. Reusing IE code for things like explorer and help could be a good idea from both a programming perspective and UI perspective. However, in Microsoft's market position, INTENT matters. If the intent was to kill Netscape (I don't like it either, but again, that's not the point) then they are violating anti-trust laws. If the intent was to streamline the codebase and provide a more consistent UI over multiple applications, then there's probably not a problem. It's part of the game when your grow to Microsoft's size and power.

The lawyers involved have to prove that either way.

I believe it has been shown that M$ has internal documents that prove the intent to harm Nutscrape. This coupled with the asinine licensing to OEMs denying them the right to install anything else pretty much seals the intent to harm.

M$ has claimed that it is a necessary part of the operating system, thereby begging the question of "how necessary?" Especially since M$ had viable products in the separate products of Win95 and IE3.

All M$ needs to prove, in my mind, was this was done with the intent of streamlining code and enriching UI, nothing more, which I don't think they can.

If Microsoft were actually competing, the issue of comingling the IE and WinX code would never be an issue. In fact, then this whole discussion about replace/remove/to DLL or not to DLL/comingle yadda yadda and whatever might actually MEAN something because then we'd be discussing the technical merits of one platform versus another. Again, this case is not about how Microsoft designs its software, its about how Microsoft does business.

Oh, and the purpose of forcing M$ to turn over the source code to Windows is simply a legal act of disclosure, eg giving each side the same set information to prepare its case. Disclosure happens in every legal case in the land.