The reality is that the Justice Department case is incredibly wimpy, touching only on the most obvious abuses by Microsoft in regards to the browser while ignoring the structural factors that give it so much market power in so many interconnected markets. What is interesting is that the Justice Department alleges amazingly gross anticompetitive and collusive intent (with quotations directly from Microsoft executives) with strongly documented cases of monopoly behavior, yet their remedies are absolutely limited. Despite what Microsoft is saying, there is no requirement that Netscape's browser be sent to the consumer, only that computer resellers be provided with a copy so they have an option of substituting it for Microsoft's browser.
The state AG case is more comprehensive in its criticism in citing the Microsoft Office bundling abuses, the threat to the open standards of Java and other bundling issues, yet it's appeal for remedies is vague (although potentially ominous for Microsoft if they keep pushing).
It's a good first step and it will hopefully escalate but I am disappointed that the Justice Department was so limited
I am working on a short analysis for my "day job" at the technology consumer group NetAction and will post it when I finish.
--Nathan Newman