I didn't infer that notion. AOL, then one of the biggest Internet companies in the world, purchased Netscape Communications in 1999, a around two years before the trial ended; to say they had "no money" would be naive at best. Netscape open-sourced their code for NN around the same time, which eventually became the base for Mozilla Firefox. Development of NN was given to a third-party company and, instead of being rescued by AOL and used as the primary browser that came with theirI'm arguing with the notion that Microsoft did not abuse their monopoly position to neuter Netscape, because that is precisely what the courts decided, thanks to leaked memos and all. It's no surprise that a company with no money doesn't innovate. By the end of the trial, Netscape had nothing to do with what it was.
My point is and was that you can't wholly attribute the downfall of Netscape Navigator to IE (even if Wikipedia says otherwise). Opera lived through the browser wars and is still going strong. Firefox gained market share despite IE's stranglehold.
We're drifting even further off topic here, but OOXML is formally standardized as Ecma-376. It's an open format that anyone can implement and use, so how can you liken that to their antitrust tactics during the browser wars? Microsoft Office 2007 and later also support opening and saving files as the competing standard, Open Document Format. Users are even asked which format they want to use as the default when an Office application launches for the first time. Hardly up to their old tricks! I don't understand what you're saying with the "mixed features between the xbox and windows" argument, either.
Perhaps the bad rep IE 6 had has something to do with my bias.
IE 6's bad rep is due to IE 6 being bad. Nobody is disputing that, but people seem to be forgetting that we're at IE 11 now, with IE 12 just around the corner.