Why Can't Microsoft Deliver 64-Bit .NET?

Despite having a research and development budget that is almost 7 billion dollars a year, Microsoft apparently can't deliver .NET for 64-bit Windows 2003. Infoworld in a recent analysis explains:

The lack of a 64-bit implementation of the .Net Framework means that the hard work many Windows developers have put into migrating to the .Net development model is for naught on Windows on Itanium.
In the meantime, IT shops that wish to employ 64-bit Windows as an application server or Web services platform will be forced to revert to the older, Windows DNA (Distributed Internet Applications) environment.

In stark contrast, BEA Systems and Sun have been shipping JRockit and J2SE with Itanium support ever since JDK 1.4.1 was released. Furthermore, according to the reports 64-bit Opteron support is expected at the same time JDK 1.5 is released.

It just boogles the mind that they can't even promise delivery until mid-2004. However, based on recent delays with Longhorn, further delay has highly likely. A video, that describes the differences on a yet to be released 64-bit .NET version, may shed some light. If you watch the video you realize that the port isn't going to be very pretty. This only reinforces the "Myth of .NET purity" and reveals the intrinsic lack of portability of the .NET framework. It's either that or Microsoft has some other "grand" plan up its sleeve. My bet is it's the former, I just can't for the life of me think of the reason to deliberately delay the release. Could Microsoft be waiting for license 6 expiration perhaps? Or even worse, could this mean that .NET isn't a high priority anymore?