[ShabbyDoo]

I had not considered Microsoft's legal need for consistency with statements made in past anti-trust cases. Was the company's argument that IE was not extricable from Windows or that Windows could not function without a tightly-integrated browser? I had thought the argument was the latter, and, if so, I don't see why Microsoft could not provide IE6 as a stand-alone browser while leaving IE8/9/whatever tightly integrated with the OS.

"Also, their revenue model only works if they can keep selling you upgrades all the time"

I think the need for IE6 hurts the velocity of Windows 7 upgrades, especially for large accounts.

[dflock]

It doesn't seem to be hurting them that much, profits wise - and certainly not enough for them to attempt to do anything about it, apparently.

During the trial, I think they argued both of the above, amongst other things. However, I'm fairly sure that's water under the bridge at this point. I would assume it's just not judged cost effective to work on decade old junk, nor to give it credence or attention by doing so.