There's no Christmas present that Microsoft officials want more than the European Union's remedies to be postponed until Microsoft's appeal in the never-ending EU vs. Microsoft antitrust trial is heard.

Microsoft doesn't seem to care about the $613 million it has been ordered by the European Competition Commission (ECC) to pay for allegedly abusing its desktop-operating-system monopoly. But Microsoft does care very much about being forced to ship a version of Windows that does not include Windows Media Player bundled into it. And Microsoft also is loath to provide more communications-protocol information to its competitors that would allow them to more smoothly integrate their servers with Windows desktops.

On Wednesday, a European Union court judge will decide if Microsoft should be forced to comply with these remedies now, or if Microsoft will be allowed to wait for years (perhaps up to five) before being required to do the bidding of the ECC.

Whichever way the judge rules, it's not hard to see why Microsoft wants the remedies, especially the Windows Media Player one, overturned. The Redmondians have been on a roll, "innovatively integrating" formerly separate products and technologies into Windows. The fear inside the hallowed halls is once bundled piece of Windows is exorcised, any and maybe even all of them might be.

If Windows Media Player can be stripped out of some versions of Windows, why not Internet Explorer? Or the Windows Messenger instant-messaging client? Or the Windows Firewall that shipped as part of Windows XP Service Pack 2?

And if Windows were to be pared back, what would happen to Microsoft's strategy to conquer by smothering the world with increasingly fat ("smart") clients?

My take? Requiring Microsoft to unbundled IE, Media Player, and other formerly separate technologies from Windows might not be the best thing for non-tech-savvy consumers who are uncomfortable finding, downloading and insuring compatibility between Windows and these elements.

That said, I believe unbundling could end up being a positive thing for Microsoft. I am not being facetious.

Look at Internet Explorer. Microsoft hasn't done a completely new rev of its browser since 2001. Sure, it made some IE tweaks in service packs, including XP SP2. But think how more feature-rich IE, standards-compliant and possibly even more secure IE would be if Microsoft felt compelled to compete fairly and squarely with Firefox, Opera, Netscape, etc. Instead, the IE team has slacked off with next-to-no negative impact, since Microsoft could count on maintaining its 90-plus-percent market share simply by virtue of IE's inclusion in Windows.

(Firefox's much publicized market-share gains, due primarily to users' dissatisfaction with IE's security record, would be far more significant if Windows didn't come with a browser preloaded, I'd argue.)

What do you think? Would Microsoft become more of an innovator again if it were forced to compete on the merits of its technologies, rather than on the spoils of its monopoly? Would users benefit from improved Microsoft products if Microsoft were not awarded the market-leader crown simply as a result of its bundling policies, rather than because of its development prowess?

Write me at mswatch@ziffdavis.com and
let me know what you think.