Slashdot Mirror
AOL Time Warner Files Anti-Trust Suit against MS
ChazeFroy writes "This article at the Washington Post says that AOL Time Warner has filed a suit against Microsoft seeking damages from anti-competitive practices over the Netscape browser."
Can't say I'm surprised.
Is it just me or does the world's largest media company filing against the world's largest software company seem just a bit hipocritical?
DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
Here.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/020122/business_tech_aol_m icrosoft_dc_2.html
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
...with the lawsuit(s) that the states are still pursuing against Microsoft? I thought that part of the reason for the states v. MS was these type of problems (MS trying to squeeze out Netscape). And even though AOL has already had their input on the matter, I guess they still have the right to sue. Seems odd that they'd just now jump on the bandwagon, and that they could have been on it all along...
"No matter where you go, there you are..." - Buckaroo Bonzai
Man, this is a perfect time to buy stock in that Lawyers Mutual Fund.
If such a fund did exist, it would be skyrocketing every day of the week. Hey Vanguard, you listening?
------
Today's Top Deals
isn't it impossible to be triad (sp?) for the same crime twice? I thought Netscape already filed an anti-trust suit for the same reason years ago and lost.
--
Garett
If we're lucky, they'll sue each other into oblivion.
The corporate wars have begun. AOL just fired the first shot across the bow.
No good will come of this.
-------------------------------------------------
Damn, you submitted faster than I did. Anyway, here's the press release. I like the part about treble damages.
Move on. There's nothing to see here.
Can't.. decide! ... Who's more... evil!
Can we axe them both, and start over with Yahoo!?
Kevin Fox
...and not the last. As far as I know, this is the first direct confrontation in which the two media giants are not merely competeing with each other, but actually battling with each other. I imagine that these kind of battles will become more and more frequent, MS and AOLTW constantly suing each other.
Everything is mainstream now.
Personally, AOL-TW scares me more than Microsoft; they've got that whole scary media empire thing going in addition to a large army of idiot users, whereas Microsoft only has a much smaller number of MCSEs (aka, professional dummies) to answer back with.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Before they try to have Microsoft remove IE from the default install, AOL will have to improve Netscape. Otherwise, people will just re-install IE separately, and show that they think IE is better on its own merits, not just because Microsoft is pushing it.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
The articles I've seen on this state that Netscape is seeking unspecified damages from MS. Idea for a /. poll:
How much should Microsoft pay Netscape in damages?
- $0-$99,999
- $100,000-$999,999
- $1,000,000-$9,999,999
- Bill Gates's Estate
- CowboyNeal's Life Savings
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
This is like watching your two least favorite football teams play in the Superbowl. You know a lot is at stake, but you can't bring yourself to care.
I liked this quote: AOL executive John Buckley noted the court ruling and said, "This action is an attempt to get justice in this matter."
And by "justice", he means "money".
-B
So, this would explain talks between AOL and RHAT. AOL would be very interested in RHAT's PoV on this, since MS has a track record for trotting out Linux as an example of their competition (which, on the desktop, Linux simply is not... yet).
"You can't literally put the market back in the competitive position it was in, so you'd have to think of a forward-looking remedy to help restore competition in the market as best as possible,"
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it. Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
I think this may be a case of too little, too late.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
So when are we going to be hearing about microsoft filing an anti-anti-trust suit in response to the one file by AOL-Time-Warner???
Be, Inc. has an open and shut antitrust suit with Microsoft. The only thing that kept BeOS from being pre-loaded onto dual-boot systems of mainstream OEMs was exclusivity contracts that MS had with those OEMs. In the context of a monopoly, such contracts are illegal because they only serve to kill off new competitors.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I guess one corporate strategy is to sue people when your product can't compete in the market. Netscape chose a different path for the evolution of their product, and it appears it was the wrong one.
They were nailed good, but Ashcroft relizing that MS gives a lot of money to his party decided to cut a deal with them. Let's turn over themarket to you and you continue giving us money.
photosMy Photostream
In 1981, 640K was enough for everyone. I think you need to go back to high school and learn the concept of verb tenses, specifically the difference between the present tense and the future tense.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Or whatever the legal mumbo jumbo for notice that you're ass is getting sued!
(intended as humor)
~ now you know
The Washington Post?
Ah well, I knew it was too good to be true.
(IANAL, of course). This is the silver lining to the disappointing outcome to the government's anti-trust case. While I would have preferred the anti-trust case to have resulted in a breakup of Microsoft or other strong measures against the company, it did at least hold that Microsoft was a monopoly.
This allows other companies large and small to launch their own suits against Microsoft and have a good shot at winning. This could end up costing Microsoft a huge amount of money and effectively curtailing their worst business practices.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Sailing over the event horizon
Normally, a company to company lawsuit over unfair competition will ask for damages due to lost sales. Just what are those damages when the price was $0.00?
Your spelling mistake actually is much closer to the truth than what you really intended. Other people are whining, not winning. I hate to tell you, but I don't know anyone who uses eudora anymore. Pretty much everyone uses some flavor of Outlook (or possibly Netscape Messenger).
Corporations use either Outlook, Lotus Notes, or Groupwise(bleh). Most companies are moving
away from the latter and moving towards the former.
Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
Hopefully much smarter people than me are out there working on a remedy, but I just don't see how they could help anything without a severely drastic course of action. By severely drastic I mean something like forcing all OEM's to sell dual boot machines with an OpenSource solution installed as the alternative.
~ now you know
Let these two behemoths duke it out while open source initiatives quietly outflank them both. While both sides are tied up in endless legal battles and tit-for-tat lawsuits, the rest of the world will keep innovating and possibly develop technologies which will make whatever they are fighting over sadly obselete.
*gets some popcorn*
This should be at the least an amusing development.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
As far as my limited knowledge of the situation allows, I feel that this is just going to lead to chaos.
:P).
/.ers are gonna have to turn street samurai...
One one hand, everyone hates MS. They're big, ominous, and imposing. They are known, however, for making at least a few quality products.
On the other, we have AOL. Everyone also hates them. They're big, ominous, and imposing. They are known, also, for lack of quality in their products. Their demographic is much more focused and thus more easily reigned however, that being less than knowledgable net users (I use AOL by the way, so -don't- start flaming
This reminds very much, in a scary way, of shadowrun. Only we don't have a corporate court to settle this.
Let's pray Gates and Case don't really have armies like we joke they do, or else I think a whole lotta
-Eric Dizkord
"I always thought Dark Futures had to be in the future
AOL isn't in the best financial shape right now - the merger with Time Warner didn't work out as well as planned, and they're going to have huge losses this year. I'm guessing the thinking here is that if they can reach a huge out-of-court settlement with MS, it'll help them get back in the black. After all, Netscape's not good for much else anymore...
I have not sympathy for AOL. They are just as anti-competitive in the ISP market as Microsoft is in the OS market. They are just pretending to be an innocent who is being attacked by a big bully.
Besides, what have they done with Netscape since they bought it. NOTHING, all of the improvements that have been made to it came through Mozilla not from AOL. They have not even been trying to improve Netscapes standing in the browser market.
Both of these companies are bad when it comes to what is best for the consumer. It would be nice if they could both be split up into a couple companies each.
I think that design was implemented before AOL bought Netscape, but still why haven't they switched over to using Netscape as the AOL browser?
~ now you know
No, it's not arguable whether Microsoft's business practices were illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of breaking federal anti-trust laws.
That's what this AOL suit is all about. In essence their suit is saying "You were found guilty of breaking anti-trust laws. Now we want to be compensated for our loss that resulted from your illegal actions."
This answers the question: Who is More Evil than Satan. AOL obviously ;-)
tsia
...
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Well it is around 6 months since the Appeals court confirmed that MS is a monopolist, and less than that since the supreme court denied cert (essentially saying there was nothing wrong with the appeals court ruling). So we are talking about less than half a year to set the case up, that is not much time given the complexities of the issue. They wanted to wait for a confirmed ruling so thy would not have to establish that as part of the case.
Amen! If Netscape had made a better browser, people would have used it. Period. And Netscape 6 is carrying on the tradition of being a slow, bug-ridden piece of crap. If IE were ported to Linux, I doubt it would take very long before it became the dominant browser there, too. It's just a better product.
Ditto the comments about other people competing with Microsoft too! MS is not perfect by any means, and it is obviously possible to make a better product and compete with them.
I used Netscape for a LONG time before finally switching to IE. I decided that I had been using an inferior product for no other reason than it wasn't MS. So I switched and now use the superior product, and will continue to do so until a better one comes along.
at least one of them will lose.
As for Netscape... how are they meant to compete when Microsoft (which owns the OS) ships IE with the OS and threatens manufacturers to dump Netscape's browser or face higher OEM costs and other punitive measures? You cannot compete in a market if your competitor has systematically destroyed it.
I hope AOL wins a lot of money so they can send out USEFUL cd's, not just read-only ones. I sure would like them a lot more and just might install AO.... ok maybe not.
~ now you know
Okay, like many others, I don't know if I am happy or sad to see this. If this really meant that standards would be adhered to (here I mean legal as well as technical) then great, since by this time I doubt anyone thinks M$ is without blame ('cept maybe of course Bill G).
/.), maybe we'd all be a little happier.
Unfortunately, I just can't help but think this just means that AOLTW just wants a bigger share of the pie (either direct through their browser or indirect through cash judgements). If AOLTW were not perceived as nearly as evil (at least here on
So, other than putting a crack in the armour of M$, what does AOLTW have to gain? Cash from a judgement (remember, M$ has about $36 Billion in the bank right now) isn't likely to mean much. AOLTW doesn't offer an OS (rumours to the contrary about acquiring RedHat ignored while proof is in the offing). MSN doesn't appear to be a threat to AOLTW. M$ is aiming to the home with the XBox (which will take years to come to any sort of fruition).
I'm not trying to be ignorant, but really, what is in this for AOLTW?
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
until he wins, and you have to worry about getting trampled.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Of course, they'd be exempt from fixing website code that actually conforms to a published standard. Maybe the punitive damages would be to make them fix Mozilla and Konqueror so that they correctly implement the standards as well.
I'm getting really tired of having to try 3 different browsers before I can get through an online purchase.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Right. As much as I realize that AOL wants to protect it's business interests, and that going after their competition is a wise move, and that there are differences between AOL and MS's situation, this seems kinda lame.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Durnit! I'm 2 stories behind...
Speak truth to power.
MTV is, last I knew, owned by Viacom and is in some way related to Universal.
I don't friggin' get it.
AOL is the largest ISP in the world.
AOL has the most subscribers in the world.
AOL owns Netscape.
AOL bundles IE with it's software.
huh?
What are they gonna sue for? Stupidity?
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
You need to go back in time, to a day when people purchased software. when netscape made money off there browser, and it was in every software store.
The MS said "Holy Cow, we missed this whole Internet thing, lets slap together a product like netscape, and givit it away. That will get rid of the competition, then we can charge!"
That was what hit Netscape, It is very hard to keep releasing a solid piece of software, you're sole income, and not make money, as a company.
Espcially when your competitor can continue to through money into there illegal practice from other areas of there business.
If MS charged for there Browser, the internet would be a lot different, I'd say better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It does have a killfile, it's called the message filter. Admittedly it's a bit clunky to have to open the dialog to kill someone, but it is open source so someone motivated enough could fix it...
A couple of years ago (more?) when this whole thing started, I was a staunch supporter of Netscape. I really wanted to see Microsoft lose this one.
.exe was in use.) I either had to have these programs on a CD, or I had to wait for Netscape to download (through command-line FTP, even!)
.Net, which is the future of Microsoft, instead of IE, which is the past.
Now, however, I worry about things like the following:
"A judge would still have the challenge of choosing a remedy that would restore competition to the Internet browser market. Netscape has only a sliver of the Internet browser market, compared to its dominance several years ago."
One of the "suggested" remedies is to force Microsoft to not include a browser with the OS. I have to question, though, whether this would really be best for the consumer.
Remember back in the day when Windows 95 first shipped? The first thing I did upon loading 95 was to install a web browser. Usually, this meant a tedious process whereby I would use FTP to connect to ftp.netscape.com and go through several directories until I found the correct binary. This was a time-consuming and tedious process. Without a web browser, I couldn't install many of the programs I typically used, including an FTP client and WinZip (used to unpack programs back before the self-extracting
So I question whether the "stripped-down" version of Windows is a real remedy, as it causes more inconvenience to consumers that way. Rather, I'd like to see Internet Explorer installed and a shortcut to install Netscape on the desktop, much like there are AOL shortcuts on most desktops now. That way, Netscape could be installed locally with little hassle, but there would still be a web browser in the OS for those who didn't care.
A few years ago, I was up in arms about this whole thing. Now, I don't care any more, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of users feel the same way. I like my IE6 with its Google toolbar and Web development tools ("view partial source", anyone?). I would have applauded this decision a while ago, but now I think that Microsoft should just pay AOL its due and move on. This lawsuit is about something that should have been settled years ago, and it's time to worry about
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
The DOJ cleared the way by showing in court that Microsoft is a monopoly. Now AOL/etc. can drive their lawsuit truck down the freshly-cleared road, since the worst part of their work has already been done for them. Easy money.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
They sure have plenty of reason!
Although this post was intended as humor, it could sarcastically be used as a defense by Microshaft that AOL is stifling competition by blanketing the country with AOL CD's, while MSN only offers service through conventional advertising. I don't think it'd hold up in court though, especially since every single computer with Microshaft software asks you about three times a day if you want to have MSN service.
~ now you know
How is an OS defined?
If it is just a kernel, then Microsoft should be sued for including:
the Windows desktop
the Windows start menu
cd player
calculator
etc
I think it is ridiculous to argue that a complete OS-in-a-can like MS Windows should not include a web browser. MS have demonstrated that a browser can be used to manage local files as well as surf the web, and is a fundamental part of their integrated package.
Just because they were slow in including a web browser does not mean that they don't have the right to do it in the future.
Now AOL's purchase of Netscape makes more business sense now... they could get billions in damage payments now that Microsoft's anti-competitive illegal business practices have been established by anit-trust court.
Of course, it's always amusing watching free software advocates (who think software should be free/beer) whine about Microsoft giving away software for free.
Alright, you win.
I'll stop whining about Microsoft making IE strongly integrated by default in its operating systems (you know, the ones that come installed by default on 90+ percent of the PCs that you find in stores?)
In particular, if Microsoft started giving away free software such as AOL 7.0 or Red Hat 7.2 or the source code to IE as part of their magnanimous gestures, then I'd be prepared to eat crow.
I'm waiting.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
...like a declaration of war? I read it, and I had the same sense of dread that I get whenever I hear countries have decided to blow the living crap out of one another.
That's right. The Netscape browser stagnated while Microsoft continued to pour money into IE development and to give IE away for free.
To anybody who says that Netscape should have just made a better browser and competed better: let's play a game of Monopoly! Except I'm changing the rules a little bit. I get to start with all the money I've ever won from every other game of Monopoly I've ever played (six figures by now), while you start with the standard $1500. This means that every property I land on, I can immediately buy and build hotels on, while you've got to work to earn your money.
Think this is unfair? Quit your griping, and put more attention into playing a good game! You can still beat me, it's a fair fight!
Of course I am risking the whole karma deal by posting something remotely supporting Microsoft, but here goes ...
... their browser and even their servers were good.
... the Netscape browser *could* have been one of those had the proper focus been kept.
Netscape had a good product
AOL bought Netscape. TimeWarner bought AOL.
Throughout all this the focus shifted away from the products of Netscape to the online vetsiges such as the portal, etc.
AOL has done little, if any, real ground breaking development on the browser front. I remember the good old days where Netscape had a new build every other month that they submitted to the world for feedback, etc. All that stopped when AOL bought them.
Their server products have pretty much ground to a halt as well. If you try to get support you're bounced around to so many people it is amazing you don't get dizzy and fall out of your chair.
What this boils down to is that Microsoft beat Netscape at their own game and then passed them. There are many things people continue to pay for although there are free alternatives
There wasn't anything predatory about that. Netscape could have fought back with a better, more engaging product, but they didn't.
The consumer browser war is over. The consumer OS war is over. Through consolidation and market forces we're left with one popular choice and many fragmented choices.
Remember when there were 8 different word processors to choose from? 4 different office suites? 5 versions of DOS? Those days are long gone and companies need to realize that the future lies in operating independent applications.
"Pot? I'm here to serve a summons on you on behalf of our client, Kettle..."
Dear Netscape,
Please make a browser that doesn't suck, and I will use it.
Thank you,
-The World
>> But the Netscape browser was bug-ridden piece of crap. That's why they died.
If the giant flaming a**hole that is Bill Gates had intelligently realized that he didn't need to cheat in this market to win, then Microsoft wouldn't be in the current state that it is.
Alas, Gates' maturity problems have cost Microsoft a few billion dollars and possibly doomed Microsoft in the long term as the behavior of his company was a primary fuel for the rise of Linux.
...the grass gets trampled.
(or something like that)
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
I much prefer to see non-government entities going after Microsoft. It makes me uncomfortable when I see state and federal entities going after a company that doesn't have "clear cut" criminal activity going on. They *have* done harm to other companies. Those companies should sue.
Much as I dislike them, the government's lawsuit against Microsoft has always looked a little too much like the government getting nervous with MS's cash reserves. The gov't doesn't like entities it can't push around.
My sig hates me. That's ok, I never cared for it much anyway.
Right, and making IE superior was not illegal, and neither was bundling it with the OS (appeals court ruling, correct me if that's wrong).
What they did do was go around and pay-off and arm-twist ISPs and OEMs to ship IE instead of Netscape. This was when those were ISPs were the primary channels for browser distribution. Even worse, they started doing this with IE 3.0, which was not superior to Netscape.
When MS plotted to "cut off their air supply", they were talking about destroying Netscape's distribution channels.
Hypothetically, MS could have poured tons of money into IE, out-engineered Netscape, and just sat back and waited for the users to come. That wasn't the course of action they chose, however.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Yep, that is billion with a B. Do you think that the timing of the lawsuit against Microsoft had anything to do with the fact the press is catching onto the mistakes AOL has made during the merger.
2 0204/206105.html
According to Fortune, "Instead of adding up to the world's most valuable company, this merger has subtracted $155 billion of market cap. CEO-designate Richard Parsons promises to do the numbers a different way."
Link is at: http://www.fortune.com/articles/2002/magazine/200
I used to think that when the judge finally called up Microsoft to announce the final decision breaking them up, they'd answer the phone "Microsoft-AOL-TimeWarner-Disney-RCA-CBS-Fox-GE-GM -Boeing-UnitedStatesofAmerica..."
I won't disagree that Microsoft has performed their fair share of monopolistic anticompetitive activities. What less can you expect from your favorite corporate giant intent on dominating the industry.
But netscape had a running head start in the browser market, and for a while, Microsoft was constantly playing catchup. Had netscape kept Microsoft in that position, then browser integration would never have been a viable option, because people would have been upset with microsoft if netscape failed to perform properly, or if they didn't really want IE tightly integrated with their OS. The fact that Microsoft already had the market share of the browser market by the time the integration took place makes the whole issue a non-issue after all.
Netscape lost their market because they stumbled. They got so caught up on insane stock prices and trying to be the supreme leader in the computer industry that they completely neglected to do the exact things required to achieve those goals. And they got blindsided by Microsoft. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Of course Microsoft has/had an almost inexhaustable source of capital to work with. They can throw money at a problem forever. But Netscape wasn't exactly broke. They had plenty of working capital and they had friendly business relations with other significant corporations like Sun. They had every ability to set the standards and run with it. When early implementations of IE with ineffective java support were breaking, Netscape and friends should have made the push to drag those customers to their camp, while Microsoft was behind.
And they needed to KEEP RUNNING. But they didn't. They chose to stagnate. They let Microsoft catch up, and clean up their browser, along with adding the ability to properly render buggy code so they would be the "more compatible" browser when netscape would break on poorly written HTML code. They gave Microsoft the chance to play the "embrace and extend" game and were forced to switch into playing catchup themselves. And that's a game Microsoft can play forever.
So don't cry too much for Netscape. They had their chance. And they blew it. They've done wonderful things, and I really wished they would have remained on top. But those days are gone. Crying about it now won't help them.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
So where are the white-hats? I don't like either of these guys, neither has anything but the bottom line at heart, and it's just going to squash a lot of little people. Or result in nothing, like the DoJ lawsuit.
Face it. The US is all but sold to MS. The only thing that's going to bring the Borg down are their own mistakes.
Actually, it's the exact same story as on the washington post web site. The story is an AP (Associated Press) story, and any newspaper or publication that subscribes to the AP wire can reprint the story with proper credit (which msnbc has done).
They could, if they wished, even edit it for space, per many AP agreements, but on the web, they don't need to do so. NBC appears to do most of the news for the msnbc site, while MS seems to do more of the opinion type stuff.
But, don't take my word for it, check for yourself, as in everything.
Pre Trial
Trial
Guilty
Appeal
overturned
Repeat
it was still stupid to tie the OS to that limit.
Plus I believe the context of the quote was "all we will ever need is 640k"
However that quote has been abused and miss used so much, I can't seem to find a reliable source on the whole conversation that took place.
After this many years, its tough to remember the exact quote.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Conclusions of Law was filed in the Microsoft case, opening them up for civil suits almost two years ago. What took them so long?
Of course, it's always amusing watching free software advocates (who think software should be free/beer) whine about Microsoft giving away software for free.
The only version of IE that is "free" (in the beer sense) is the one for MacOS. (I'm not counting the laughable Solaris version.) All the others are part of your *purchase* of Microsoft Windows -- not free at all.
I'll use Trillian for my IM client, and stick with Opera for Browsing.
If Opera were filling suit, this would be a different story. They are effectively the same company that competed against Microsoft in the begining. AOL didn't own netscape until WAYYYY after the browser war was lost.
And frankly, it isn't Microsoft's Problem that Netscape 6.x has been a horrible piece of crap in the stability department up until 6.21.
Lemme guess, if they win the suit then they announce the real acquistion of RedHat because they would have broken the microsoft grip and then 5 years from now everything will be AOL'ized instead of Microsoft. I'd really hate to see Aol Box's everywhere.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
It isn't illegal to give away a product.
Geezus, AOL gives away 2,000 hours or free months, whats the diff? In the end you still pay for it.
You're not the only one who feels this way.
Besides, who's fault it is if Netscape 6 sucks? Konqueror will slowly but surely kick netscape's ass.
Yes, I know, but I wanted to use "You've Got..." and putting "served" after that just didn't sound right. There has to be a noun for that process, I just haven't watched Law and Order enough times to remember it.
~ now you know
Oh holy heck. You are exactly right.
;-)
I got on a rant and wasn't thinking.
What sucks about this is that I *preferred* the Netscape browser before it went into the AOL black hole.
Sorry about the misdirection to Sun. The support does suck
I hear what you're saying. I really do. However, the thing that really put the final coffin that is Netscape was when M$ started giving away their browser. NS actually made money selling their browser. It helped further the development of the browser and their server products. Then came the restrictive licensing agreements from M$. "OEM's! Thou shlat only place IE on your machine. Do it not and I shall revoke thine Windows license." Talk about playing hardball!
I honestly don't think Netscape could have competed on quality of product alone once the fiery Red Eye in Morder... er... Redmond got wind of what they were actually doing down there in Mountain View. Give away the browser for free, get the people hooked, and then bolt it into the OS. Classic drug dealer approach!
Pooty tweet
Netscape lost their market because they stumbled. They got so caught up on insane stock prices and trying to be the supreme leader in the computer industry that they completely neglected to do the exact things required to achieve those goals. And they got blindsided by Microsoft. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
I'm no Netscape fan-boy, but how do you figure? If you had actually followed the events at the time, you'd know that the only reason Netscape "stumbled" was because Microsoft came along and put ten times more money into the development of IE while giving it away for free. Remember, Netscape was only free for non-commercial use (it was $30 otherwise).
Netscape was faced with a rival that had an order of magnitude more resources and cut off their major source of revenue for development. As a result their browser became a buggy mess as they didn't have the time to do the decent development there were doing before.
Let's be very frank here: Netscape died because they were forced out of business by anti-competitive business tactics of a monopoly power. Period. Netscape 4.x sucked because of this pressure, not in spite of it.
- j
As I recall, AOL chose to stick with an IE-based browser in their latest iteration of the AOL software. If I wanted to take seriously this complaint from AOL about Microsoft being so anti-competitive, I'd like to see AOL stick to their guns and use Netscape/Mozilla as their main browser.
Or even better: give AOL users a choice!
Still, maybe this is all just part of a larger plan: "See, Your Honor?!? We can't even use the browser we own and develop because the defendant's anti-competitive business practices have unfairly made IE the standard browser that web site authors design for. If we used our own browser, our users would complain that too many sites didn't work!"
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
check this.
"I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
You can install IE quite easily and legally on the oldest versions of Windows 95, which didn't come with IE in any form. You don't have to pay anything for it == free.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Isn't there some sort of limitation on how many people can sue a person/company (same thing in the US) for the same thing ?
This crap against Microsoft is getting old. If people didn't want to use IE on most WIN32 PCs, and programmers didn't want to code for IE, there's nothing stopping them from using something else.
After all, Microsoft as a company that makes both an OS ans a Web-browser (which happens to be fully integrated with the OS). Who's to say they have to give the option to package the OS with someone else's browser?
Isn't that like GM being forced to give the option to include either their own air-conditioning system, or one from Ford!
Stupid Canadian side-note:Is sueing someone the only way to compete in the American market? Seems to me like the new "American-Way", is to sue someone today!
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
The Lawyers... ;)
At least they're the lesser evil this time
For the past several years we had Netscape 4.x, the bastion of stability and standards compliance, available to the world, and people still use IE. Go figure.
Netscape had their chance, they blew it with the total crap known as Netscape 4, any decent company would have killed software that was as bug ridden as Netscape was.
Oh yah, they did kill it. AOL picked IE as their default browser.
Netscape lost their market because they stumbled . . . And they got blindsided by Microsoft. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Then they're lucky as hell, 'cause to the court it's sure gonna look like all of that "stumbling" corresponds a little too well with Microsoft cutting off Netscape's sole revenue stream.
Maybe Netscape slipped and fell on the pavement, but Microsoft was standing there throwing rocks. Looks pretty incriminating to me.
-Erik
how exactly did MS cheat? Gates made MS, how could he cost MS a few billion dollars?
Ugh you're right. I thought it did usenet too but I was obviously thinking of 4.x. Time to file a bug.
I don't think its fair to say that Netscape failed because they stumbled. Remember, they were a struggling startup, who had three main sources of revenue, browser licenses, server software, and portal advertising (although I don't think that amounted to much).
So here comes microsoft with deep pockets, and they start giving their browser away. It was a great plan. They basically financed the cost of developing the browser, by integrating it with their OS (windows 95) and selling the two combined as a new product. Meanwhile, Netscape finds its oxygen slowly being cut off.
So then they get bought up by AOL, who is willing to give up on the browser war just to pursue the portal property and server software, which at the time seemed like valuable landscape. Now development of the browser has stumbled, but thats what happens when you go low-budget on development.
But microsoft is very guilty of dumping. They basically lowered the price to 0 to get share and hurt the competition, outwaited them, and then got the money back with the next release of the OS.
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
This is the battle ground for control of digital content. With it's recent Xbox moves into a home entertainment console and media rights initiatives Microsoft is setting itself up to be the owner of the interface between people and digital media. AOL Time-Warner has/wants a huge stake in the digital media arena. With this action AOL/T-W hopes to wrest control from the grabbing arms of Microsoft which appear to be grabbing up the digital media realestate by extension of their desktop monopoly. Where the final control ends up is anyones guess.
Can we hope that AOL/T-W will push for an open interface to digital media? I think not.
All publishers have a clear interest in strict digital rights controls.
okay....you obviously know nothing about what Netscape are suing about - so lemme tell ya...
:)
Netscape gave away their browser for free use....and after IE was released, they gave it away for commercial use. THIS WAS NOT WHERE THEY MADE MONEY.
The Nescape server software (web services, email etc) as what companies, governments and educational institutions were paying for. You could buy NT 3.51 Workstation, and install the Netscape services, and have a full fledged server. So what did M$ do? Changed the licenses for NT 4.0 Workstation so that you had to buy the Server version if more than 10 people were accessing the computer. Obviously people would have to buy the MS server, so they didn't bother buying the netscape one......and now what is the cost?
Exchange
I think you'll find the web will become considerably more friendly towards Mozilla & Netscape 6.x when AOL uses the Gecko engine in its clients. AFAIK the Compuserve is going to switch over pretty soon now.
then why does Netscape suck under every OS? Oh wait, yeah MS made a deal with every OS to make Netscape a little bit slowler and a little bit buggier than IE. This gotta be the reason.
In the 2000 election cycle Microsoft gave approximately 56% of their contributions to the Republican party. Guess where the other 44% ($996,792) went.
I'd say that if you believe Microsoft buys politcial influence you have to admit that they bought it from both sides.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Anti-Trust law 101. What you call "bundling" is called "Tieing". When a company holds a monopoly in a market, they are specifically prohibited from "tieing" non-monopoly products with their monopoly products.
Remember it is not illegal to be a monopoly. But once you are a monopoly, the rules change for you. Things that were once common sense business tactics and legal are now illegal. Using your monopoly in one area to gain leverage for another product is ILLEGAL.
Anti-Trust laws were created after the Robber barrons of the Railroads and Sugar Trusts and other scandals of the early 1900s. You don't want to go back to those times, trust me or read a book on the subject.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
Not since Microsoft made it a "standard".
Before then, you downloaded one with an ftp client, or bought Netscape in a box from the local computer store. Had competition been able to thrive in the browser and OS market, partnerships between an OS vendor and Netscape (or Opera) would have been formed and the prices would have been built into the price of the OS.
It might seem like speculation, but what I'm saying is that had there been competition, the browser market would have shaped up like any other market. Browsers would be cheap, but they would still be paid for one way or the other, unless it's OSS.
Microsoft clearly killed this market, making it impossible for anyone to make money from selling a browser.
What are you talking about? When I registered an internet account for my cousin about a year ago, the ISP sent her a CD with Netscape for Mac and Windows.
I guess one corporate strategy is to sue people when your product can't compete in the market. Netscape chose a different path for the evolution of their product, and it appears it was the wrong one.
.Net and other "services" until they are stopped.
Yes, Netscape made a huge mistake in trying to sell popular software that ran on Windows. They happened to create a market that a larger company with no scruples, and deep pockets, coveted and for that they were squashed.
I don't hear you complaining about Microsoft suing other companies trying to enter the market. (Lindows)
they have the capability to make sure that the news you see, both online and on TV, comes from a single source.
Perhaps, if you only get your news from AOL-TW's sources. They can't keep you from watching your local news, reading your local newspaper or looking for news online from a site that isn't controlled or owned by AOL.
I do share concern that AOL-TW controls too many news sources, but AOL's control of the media pales in comparison to Microsoft's control of the average computer user.
AOL isn't the nicest corporation in the world, but Microsoft deserves to be punished for their actions here. They did abuse their monopoly of the desktop to limit choice of software. Make no mistake, they should not be punished merely for having the desktop monopoly, but they are engaging in illegal pracices to maintain that monopoly and extend it. They will continue to do so to push their MSN,
This suit is one way of doing so, and I wish AOL all the best in winning it.
You're probably still in school, right? All businesses copy ideas from each other and try to improve on them. That's how it works in real life.
From the Post: "AOL, which bought Netscape in 1999, wants Microsoft to cease its contested business practices and pay damages."
Netscape was already giving their Navigator/Communicator products away by the time AOL bought the company. In other words, they were not actually making any money from the product, unless you count their money losing web site that happens to be the browser's default home page, which only would have lost MORE money due to increased bandwidth costs had IE not managed to pick up so much market share.
In other words, what damages is AOL actually suing for? They knew that Netscape's position in the market had already been destroyed when they bought Netscape, and were quite aware of Microsoft's efforts to make IE king of browsers. It seems to me that AOL is really just trying to find some way to get some money from their idiotic purchase of Netscape, which they have yet to actually market to THEIR OWN USER BASE.
This isn't about whats there now, this is about what happened when netscaped charged for the browser, and MS wielded its monopoly illegally, and forced netscape to be free.
Oh, and you might as well not use ANY OS from any company sonce that company is making money of the sweat of the common coder.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Have you tried installing RealOne on a Windows Machine? Well if you did, you'd realise that Real will automatically makes itself the default player for most media formats. Let's say you want to change your default player for MPEG video clips; you know what? It just won't let you, Real will still be your default player for MPEG clips. I finally uninstalled it and I'm not visiting any more websites that require Real.
If AOL claims that Microsoft has no right to sue monopolists whose actions hurt them (Microsoft), that certainly would be hypocritical.
That ain't the fact scenario
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist whose activities negatively impacted Netscape, now a division of AOL.
I'm sure that AOL stands steadfastly behind Microsoft's right to sue any monopolist that damages it.
AOL lost nothing. In fact, Netscape's poor performance allowed AOL to buy it cheaper.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Personally, I believe that AOL's service sucks. Furthermore, I disagree with the whole AOL/TW thing. In my opinion, content providers and connection providers should be separate entities.
But let's ignore those comments for a moment. I feel I must applaud AOL for filing an Antitrust suit against Microsoft.
Further, although I dislike AOL, I believe it would be beneficial to the consumer if AOL makes strategic alliances with every company that competes with Microsoft. This means they wouldn't buy those companies, but the group of companies can, together, provide quality, lower-priced products and services and crush Microsoft.
Consider the recent rumors of AOL buying Red Hat. If, instead of buying, AOL made a strategic alliance with Red Hat, began providing a native Linux AOL client, and mass-mailed CDs containing a Linux distro with the client, this would give millions of AOL users a choice in operating systems, increase the amount of Linux installations out there, and decrease Microsoft's market share.
Suppose AOL and Linux distributors got together and made such alliances with other companies that produce brand-name commercial software that competes with Microsoft's products. Thousands of titles and hundreds of companies are in this position. And suppose that this large alliance now makes deals with computer manufacturers. If only one large manufacturer, like Dell or Compaq, sold PCs with preinstalled Linux and bundled brand-name software, it would heavily reduce Microsoft's market share and bring the entire software community one step closer to winning the fight against the giant squid.
But it'll probably never happen. And besides, RMS would probably commit suicide, so it's probably best, for his sake, that this never happens.xxxxx O xxxxx H xxxxx xxxxx W xxxxx E xxxxx L xxxxx L xxxxx
Just couldn't let this one go by:
Microsoft isn't being sued for including the desktop/start menu etc. They are being sued for leveraging their monopoly on the kernel+OS+desktop into other software tools. They do have the right to include their web browser. But as a monopoly, they don't have the right to:
In my opinion, Microsoft has broken many many laws, the most aggregious being the use of exclusive licensing agreements with manufactures to lock out alternative operating systems and products.
Heck Be (may it rest in peace) offered all PC manufacturers BeOS for free if they would include it on their shipping computers. Lots of companies were "interested". Microsoft prevented this from happening by threatening/extorting the manufacturers with their illegal "licensing agreement" and in the end only one, Hitachi, took them up. Even then, Hitachi was forced to hide the partition so you had to go through a labyrinth of steps to boot into Be.
I think if any of the PC manufacturers ever grew some balls (or got desperate enough) and sued Microsoft for predatory pricing/illegal practices, they would have the best chance of all of winning a shitload of damages. Unfortunately, Microsoft would be able to drive any big manufacturer completely out of business before they could win in court.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Now think of one small reason why they could have donated more to the Republicans. I contracted there during the last election cycle and a well known VP who's name has appeared on /. before and who shall go unmentioned dropped the hint to all the employees in his division on which candidates were running which systems for their websites. Guess who was running the Windows based server? You guessed it, GW.
Now I cannot speak for the other divisions and where and why their contributions went to the other party, but it is clear that there was an anti-Linux sentiment within the Windows division and hung a stigma on Gore because he was using Apache.
Now before you mod me down as a troll, realize that this was from my own experience watching BV rallying his troops during a free party for his division (think free as in beer)
Let's get one thing straight here: However M$ managed to win with IE, it was NOT because it was a better piece of software. What the industry lost with the death of netscape was far more of a blow to
the technological progress of web technologies than
just the simple fact that IE is considered by most internet users to be the only acceptable browser. What the industry lost was JavaScript.
... now hear me out at least before you dismiss this post. The javascript i'm talking about isn't the cheesy mouseover-effect popup-annoyance ad-spamming tool that the industry knows today... the javascript i'm talking about is the client-side event-based windowing/navigation scripting language that the original technology could have evolved into before M$ crushed netscape and with it any chance of javascript growing past it's infancy.
Did it occur to anyone that AOL possibly bought NSCP for no reason other than to have the avenue open to do exactly this -- file suit against Microsoft.
NSCP wouldn't have had the time or resources to do it, but AOL basically 'bought' a case for them to dump onto Microsoft. AOL on the other hand has the time and more than enough resources to make this a real PITA for Microsoft.
No, Netscape chose a path too late. Far too late.
Their 4.x line of browsers sucked and was already loosing market share to IE. Then MS decided to give away IE making the switch from a sucky Netscape browser (which cost money at the time) to a free MS browser that was getting better with each release was a no-brainer.
The first NS browser that was able to compete with IE 5.0 and later was NS 6, which was based on an incomplete Mozilla.
Mozilla is the future for Netscape (either open source or branded) and it was the right decision IMHO, it just came WAY TOO LATE. By the time NS/Mozilla made the decision to ditch the old NS 4.X core MS had pretty much wrapped and won the browser wars.
Now, and with equal footing I hope that the NS 6/Mozilla line can re-gain marketshare from Microsoft. AOL should ditch IE in their AOL product and replace it with Mozilla/NS, but they can't because MS won't give them the special consideration (desktop placement and all) if they do.
If the many, many millions of AOL users suddenly started using NS/Mozilla (because it was switched out by the latest AOL upgrade) the world, browser wise would shape up to be a different landscape IMHO.
Palin...
Microsoft is getting what is coming to it, not for "distributing superior software for 0% the price of a competitor", but for coercing OEMs into offering no other choice.
Or you could read The Antitrust Terrible 10: Why the Most Reviled "Anti-competitive" Business Practices Can Benefit Consumers in the New Economy. Note that the 8th section in the PDF deals specifically with tying and bundling. Enjoy!
grep -ri 'should work'
And for that they DESERVED to die!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
IE isn't built into the kernel. It's built into explorer.exe, which isn't dissimilar from having Konquerer built into KDE.
nonsense.
Zippy the Wonder Boy (A.K.A. Marc A) was making tons of noise on how the browser was going to make the OS obsolete, etc etc etc.
It's only natural for the OS developer to want to include that functionality.
Sure, there is a slim chance that there could be a 3rd party 'browser market' out there, but it's slim at best.
Do you buy a 3rd party print Q manager? File browser? File sharing software? No - they are expected parts of the OS (name one contemporary OS that doesn't ship with this stuff). Sure you can buy a 3rd party solution if you need something extremely sophisticated, but the OS developer is looking to produce features that 75-90% of users will get a use out of.
Lets look at this from a different angle... Should Sun have been prohibited from providing NFS with SunOS when there were other companies who's entire business was to provide file sharing functionality (e.g. Novell, Banyan). No
Same thing applies in other markets. There was no radio in the original Ford Model T. Does that mean that Ford shouldn't be allowed to 'bundle' a radio in their cars? If you say they should be allowed... there was a big 3rd party market out there that the automobile manufacturers effectively squashed by adding features. Radios, stereos, air conditioning, power windows, cruise control, etc etc.
Microsoft is totally right in saying that they can put anything they want in the OS.... even a 'ham sandwich' if they want. If you don't like what they provide, don't buy it.
What they SHOULD be punished for was the anticompetative actions they took with regards to bundling (e.g. telling a PC manufacturer they would lose their Windows license, or pay higher fees if the manufacturer shipped Netscape with the PC by default).
Netscape screwed up. They thought there was a browser market (there isn't). They didn't realize that the real $$$ was in providing content --- www.netscape.com was the MOST visited place on the web for the longest time (because it was the default page in the browser). They blew it - YAHOO grabbed that ball and ran with it. And third they kept releasing buggy, crashing horrible applications that literally drove their users away.
Actually, I was thinking of my favorite Godzilla movie, cause no matter who wins, you know Tokyo is going to be decimated :)
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
As others have pointed out, it was not so much that Netscape was not able to keep up with Microsoft and IE, but rather that IE was being given away for free.
So Netscape starts giving away their browser for free. Their profit idea? To make money instead from the server software. This did not work either, since IE had a larger and larger grasp of the market, and it was easier to talk companies into buying things like IIS when you could show that more people had IE installed than Netscape (this was easy to do - IE was being installed with each new Windows install).
So Microsoft cut off that stream of revenue, simply by giving away a product, and including it with their already established OS.
Make the same argument, but replace "server software" with "portal," and you see another way that Microsoft cut off Netscape.
This is what the monopoly thing is all about. This behavior could very easily be found to be monopolistic.
One thought did cross my mind reading trough these different articles.
Is it possible that AOL bought Netscape, at least in part, as a possible revenue stream because of the possibility of future lawsuits against Microsoft? I mean, for a while I believe that AOL was still distributing IE with AOL (due to a prior agreement), and quickly turned Netscape open source (so as to minimize costs?).
Putting these things together, it would seem that AOL bought something and then did not use it that much. Now, however, with the Department of Justice and this lawsuit, it would seem that AOL is getting more use out of the Netscape name in the lawsuits than it ever did as an actual product.
These things are all about money. Is is not possible that AOL saw Netscape as a way to get some settlement money from Microsoft?
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
The branded online community market.
Which market does Microsoft hold a monopoly in? The browser market? The desktop operating system market?
AOLTW:media::MS:desktop.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
This is so ignorant... sorry for the long post
.NET. If they are wrong it won't matter because they have a monopoly. They will keep trying until they find a way to extract more money from us.
In days gone by, MS and NS compete for the browser market.
NS does so to make a profit. They charge about 30 bucks for a personal licence. They are doing pretty well, they have the majority of the market and are making some money. They have some rough times and some bad releases, but they are a relativly small and extremely young company.
MS realizes that the web contains the potential for true cross-platform applications. Somewhere down the road web servers can evolve into application servers. Any client can access those applications.
This spells doom for microsoft because they are (in their darkest soul of souls) an applications company. If browsers evolve into generic remote application clients then MSFT collapses.
So they pour money into IE. We arn't talking about chump-change, we're talking big bucks to out-develop netscape. First they race to create a viable competitor and give it away.
Who paid to have IE developed? Everyone who has purchased a windows license post NT 3.0 (which was bundled with IE 2.x as I recall).
Microsoft expects us to believe that IE is free. They expect us to believe that Media Player is free. The list is long, because MS is an applications company.
The fundamental fact is; if some independant company had released IE 1.0 as competiton for netscape they could not have made enough money to develop through IE 4.x.
With MS bankrolling IE development they could create a NS competitor (took quite a few versions but they certainly did it), and give it away for free.
Once they reached that step NS had no chance. Income dissolves and NS can no longer afford to develop a competitive product.
So when I hear the "IE is better than netscape, that's why they won" flavor of crap I can only respond with "yes". Microsoft spent hordes of money to create a piece of sotware for which their is (according to the price MS charges) no value.
MS bought the ability to guide the evolution of the Internet. You had better believe they are going to get a huge return on that investment. They seem to believe that the route to capitalization is through
The essencial question, the one that keeps me up nights is this: Will the abuses of MS's monopoly power force the internet five years down the line to be a shadow of what it could be?
I'm a little confused about something. How does a lot of people using Netscape help them financially? They give it away free. Is it ad revenue? Are there people that pay for it?
I'd like to understand this before I comment much more. At the moment I can't see how they can prove any monetary damage was done. If more people downloading browsers (at Netscape's expense) is helping Netscape, then it seems to me they should have fought harder to keep their market share.
Every new version of IE has *something* new and interesting about it, but Netscape's releases seemed to do little more than fix bugs. I have never seen a commercial on TV or in a magazine for it, nor has Netscape given me any real reason to want to upgrade.
Instead, I dumped them both and I switched to Opera. Opera is radically different than NS or IE, and I hope some day it gets some more visibility out there because it's a damn fine browser. If Netscape were more like Opera, I not only think that the market share would be closer to even, but IE would be radically different too because it'd force MS to keep up. The way things are, though, it's hard to imagine that MS's dominance in the market is a result of it being a bully when IE is arguably superior to Netscape.
"Derp de derp."
He was tried once by two separate sovereign powers. No single power tried him twice.
This is a key difference between the American model and most other countries. In those countries there's one sovereign power that was originally tied to a monarch, and all of the subdivisions are mere administrative conveniences. All of the major laws (e.g., criminalizing murder or assault) are national.
In the US, each state is a sovereign power. Not only does each state implement it's "police powers" differently, the Federal government generally does *not* use police power with two exceptions. The first is serious crimes involving multiple states, the second is law enforcement on federal lands where local enforcement is undesirable (e.g., military bases, or to a smaller extent national parks).
This is why the modern crop of "conservatives" seem so... insane... to anyone with a sense of history. True conservatives would never support the federal government getting involved in small local crimes like possession of small amounts of drugs. They aren't even comfortable with the FBI being the lead agency in bank robberies, even if it's nominally because the banks are FDIC insured. (In truth, it's because the bank robbers of the 1930s fled across state borders and the feds were legitimately brought due to the interstate flight, but they decided to "streamline" the process and ended up creating a precedence.)
It's interesting to contrast this case (where the cops were charged with violating Rodney King's civil rights after acquittal in state court of other criminal charges) with Oklahoma trying to try Terry Nichols for murder because they don't think the federal life sentence is enough. They want a separate state trial solely so they can execute him.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can install IE quite easily and legally on the oldest versions of Windows 95, which didn't come with IE in any form. You don't have to pay anything for it == free.
Even then, it requires a Microsoft product to run. At best, it's "free with purchase". I don't take issue with a browser being bundled with the OS -- I just don't like to foster the misconception that this is some sort of gift.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, well I don't trust Microsoft OR AOL/Time Warner! I guess I should file one of these things then too...
What directory do I put it in, again?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
This reminds me of what MS's Good Friend David "Big Fat Idiot" Coursey said a week ago:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10 738,2838875,00.html
"...let me also state quite categorically: Given the choice between a hyper-competitive and fast-moving Microsoft that breaks the law sometimes, and a hamstrung company where regulators make innovation an afterthought, I'll take the former every time. And so should you."
Creepy, huh? As long as MS keeps making his cushy-ass ZDNet pundit job easier and easier (by eliminating choice!), he doesn't care how they break the law.
~Jeff
At least AOL is not wasting billions of tax dollars and then essentially rolling over at the command of a President who actually believes he speaks "Mexican".
They're spending their own money to fight this battle. Personally, I'm cool with that.
Pooty tweet
Snicker. Snicker.
Hate to point out what should already be obvious, but Microsoft wasn't denying the IE team access to the API's.
No, it's not arguable whether Microsoft's business practices were illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of breaking federal anti-trust laws.
Of course it's arguable, unless you think courts are somehow empowered with Pope-like divine infallibility.
Microsoft may be guilty of something, but we'll never know from THAT court. The judge was a baffoon, and the case they brought was deeply flawed. They never should have picked the browser as the basis for the case. Microsoft were idiots in the way the defended themselves. They should have defended their right to put accessory features vital to an operating system, not that laughable "it's too deeply integrated to remove" defense.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There's a difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal monopoly. AOL Time Warner isn't actively trying to make itself the ONLY news source. Microsoft is actively trying to make itself the only EVERYTHING. Don't make comments when you don't accurately understand the difference between legal and illegal monopolies.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Wow! How old is the crowd reading this? Doesn't anyone remember that Netscape used to have the best browser out there and that they actually charged money for it? Until M$ figured out the only way they could be top dog in the browser market was that they had to give it away for free and develop it using profits from Windows and Office, a company could actually SELL A BROWSER FOR MONEY!
Once a big chunk of their revenue stream was taken away, the quality of the browser really began to suffer. Tack on the fact that M$ had some licensing agreements with many PC OEM's requiring them to NOT SHIP Netscape on PC's as well as their weird proprietary tags (not that NS didn't have a few as well) and you have a recipe for NS' demise.
Hell! M$ even courted major entertainment sites and encouraged them to develop their sites so that they could ONLY be viewed with IE for Windows! I'm a Mac user and years ago I used only Netscape and I couldn't even access the star trek website. Totally unsupported for Netscape and the lack of Mac support was just rubbing salt in the wounds.
M$ needs to pay for this reckless disregard for consumer choice and if AOL/TW wants to use their own money to fight this battle, I'm fine with that. The US government , since Bush was appointed president, has shown that they no longer have the cojones to do what is right and just.
Pooty tweet
yeah sure. MS Money around here costs $40CAD, Quicken costs $99CAD, amazingly Quicken is the best selling one. MS Office costs hundreds of dollars, StarOffice costs $0, amazingly MS Office has a 90% marketshare.
hmmm let's see, Bill created MS which created Windows, the same OS that brought billions of dollars to AOL.
I don't see how AOL can sue MS. Without Windows, AOL wouldn't even be here
Anyway, Bill Gates isn't the CEO anymore.
CNNfn is reporting that it is Netscape doing the suing, not all of AOLTW.
This space intentionally left blank.
competition among businesses is an important thing, and microsoft has been allowed to compete on a different level than thier competitors. It would be something like if in a game of poker they were dealt from the face cards only while thier competitor's were given only numbered cards. You can see how they would be kicking the ass of the competition. You can't expect someone holding all the good cards to lay aside the sure win and try to play it the old-skool way.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
You guys are blinded by your hate towards Microsoft. Don't you realise that if Microsoft is forbidden to integrate IE to Windows, than KDE should then a serious hit too since "Konqueror" is pretty much the IE for KDE. Second, you can't stop Microsoft from shipping IE with Windows, otherwise, you wouldn't have the right to ship "Mozilla" or "Konqueror" or "Nescape 4.7" with Linux either.
The only thing you can do is force them to include links to websites of Mozilla, Netscape, Opera on the desktop of redirect them to a webpage on their first IE launch. And I have no problem with the fact that Microsoft integrates the browser with the OS because I can't count the times where I dragged and dropped files from my HD to an FTP sites and vice-versa. The advantages are so big. Besides, that's not even integration, but only inter-process communication. So the only thing that really shows that IE is integrated into windows is that when IE crashes, Explorer tends to crash too, even tough under WinXP you'll not always loose your taskbar and systray when IE crashes.
There is NOTHING illegal about spending tons and tons of money and making a better/cheaper/whatever product than the opposition. There is no anti-competition clause that says you have to make your stuff suck just because they competition does too. A coperartion is free to throw all the cash they like at a project to make it as good as possible. Heck, they are free to then sell it at a loss if it pleases them to do so (videogame consoles are sold at a loss). Even monoplies can do this.
For example, suppose GM developed some revolutionary manufacturing technology (nanotech maybe) that allowed them to make industrial goods so precisely they basically never wore out, and do so at half the previous cost. They start producing cars that cost half what a Chrysler or Honda does and have 30 year warentees. This would, in short order, kill the sales of the other companies. Guess what? Not illegal.
The anti-competition lawas are around to HELP consumers, not hurt them. For example if I'm a monoply I can't tell the sotres that I sell to not to carry your product because it competes with mine (something MS did). That hurts the consumers by limiting their options unfairly. However I can go and spend $10 Billion dollars to make my product so much better than yours that people only buy mine. That is perfectly legal.
This is the real world, not preshcool. Everything is NOT fair. It is somewhat like baseball: there are rules and regulations ot keep everyone playing the same game, but there's nothing against spending tons of money to have an overwhelmingly good team.
.. for what it's worth.. Intresting, after all these years. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3220e7e 0.4271568%40news.blarg.net
Netscape was faced with a rival that had an order of magnitude more resources and cut off their major source of revenue for development. As a result their browser became a buggy mess as they didn't have the time to do the decent development there were doing before.
What you say seems to make sense, but there's a question that shows a flaw in your argument - if Netscape couldn't afford to develop a decent, bug free browser with their resources, how is it that Opera, with less resources, has managed? How is it that Konquerer is a lot more useful and stable? Netscape has had a lot of time to get their program back together and they just haven't done it. They were stuck at 4.7 for the longest time, and it was a buggy mess. Their real problem was they didn't do a very good job on their product and they took a long time to realize they were at a developmental dead end and it was time to start over.
Incase you don't remember Netscape was one of "Those IPO's" that you HAD to have. Netscape had so much money coming out of there ass it wasn't even funny.
Infact is Netscape had any brain they would have given away the browser to begin with and focused on the then lucrative server market that meant MILLIONS in licensing revenues and NO headaches. It is alot easier to sell a 25,000.00 application server and 60,000.00 in 5 year support contract then it is to sell the 1 million shelve copies of netscape to make that much money.
I think netscape saw pointcast and spent way to much money on the shortlived, buggy and defunct Netcaster and then tried to play catchup and even at one point tried to break HTML with netscape proprietary tags.
Now IE did its share, but IE usually supported whatever Mosaic did at the time, and nowadays IE supports everything long before netscape and ofcourse netscape is going proprietary with XUL and such when there are already plenty of pluginable programming interfaces pretty standard on both ends of the http request.
My quam isn't with a company making money off a solid product, my quam is a company spending a few bucks to buy the rights to sue someone else.
Just like the dumb asses who sued mcd's because the coffee was too hot, they should have been shot. People who sue to justify there own means should be put to rest. People who sue to protect there rights are doing justice. AOL lost no rights, they lost on there failling merger and they lost on there bleeding cash out of every seem so lets so.
This is like Rambus all over again on a different scale.
To anybody who says that Netscape should have just made a better browser and competed better: let's play a game of Monopoly! Except I'm changing the rules a little bit. I get to start with all the money I've ever won from every other game of Monopoly I've ever played (six figures by now), while you start with the standard $1500. This means that every property I land on, I can immediately buy and build hotels on, while you've got to work
True, except your point is completely invalid.
Both Microsoft and AOL TW are multi-billion dollar companies. AOL TW is nothing short of a multimedia conglomerate with its roots in every major form of media, the arts, entertainment, and technology.
Your point would be valid if, and only if, Netscape was still being developed by either a small private company or small collective of individuals. It isn't. If AOLTW's would have willed it, they could have backed Netscape to create the premeir Browser. Instead, they're using Netscape to attempt to make the most amount of money from the least amount of work.
before the gov't throws the whole case.
AOL bought Netscape, they're going for their piece of Microsoft. I'm sure there are other companies that will follow suit (pun intended).
Let the frenzy begin!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
People setting up web servers are more likely to consider alternatives that people doing the first steps on the internet.
Back in the 90's before aol bought netscape about the time MSN was starting, before AOL was the force it is today.....
..AOL was using its own browser at the time. I don't know how it came about about basically AOL agreed to use IE in exchange for the bundling AOL with microsoft windows.
They wanted to have AOL available on every new pc, because they feared that MSN would do well as it was on every PC's desktop. Microsoft wasn't under the Anti-competetive microscope back then.
Microsoft also made deals with apple to port office if ie was the default browser for Macos.
Then AOL bought netscape. Why they haven't switched to Netscape may be for contractual reasons although I'm not sure....
Man, it started way earlier than the 1900s. As long as there have been corporations, there's been out-and-out warfare between them. And as for the poster who said, "Too bad they can't fight with real weapons," well, sometimes they do. In fact, the vast majority of warfare is fought primarily over economic concerns.
You have the occasional religious anomaly, such as the crusades. But most is based on one group raiding and sacking another for its resources: Germany under Hitler, France under Napoleon, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Goths/Visigoths/Vandals raiding Rome, the Spanish conquest of the Incas and Aztecs.
And even revolutions and civil wars are primarily over economic concerns. The American Revolution was founded primarily in the disagreement between England and the USA as to what business opportunities should be available -- the colonists wanted to trade with everyone; the crown thought the colonies only existed to benefit England. In fact, that's the story with just about every colony revolt. The American civil war was fought over slavery, which had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the Southern Plantation owners' need for cheap labor. And then of course, there are the numerous Communist revolutions, attempts by the working class to eliminate the ruling class, which only succeed in creating a new ruling class.
One could easily go so far as to say that even wars supposedly started over religion really had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with economics: The Catholic Church was seeking to extend its power and influence into new areas, to have more resources to draw upon and more power. The fighting in Israel is about land, not belief. And Islamic terrorists fight because they have nothing to lose; when there is an economic downside to terrorism, people abandon their zealotry quickly.
I'd go as far as to say that all wars have been corporate wars, and all struggles are struggles based on limited resources.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Tell me which market AOL holds a monopoly in and you may have a point.
they have a monopoly in dumbed down internet access. They bought out compuserve, and crushed prodigy.
You are totally correct in your assessments! :-)
I think the handwriting was literally on the wall once Microsoft released IE 5.0, which was the first version of IE that had very clean and fast rendering of web pages. It was in many ways far superior to Netscape 4.x versions; IE 5.5x and IE 6.0 built upon the foundation of IE 5.0.
Indeed, today's IE 6.0 is perhaps the best web browser out there in terms of a balance of speed and rendering accuracy, pending just how well Mozilla 1.0 code is like when that is finally released. IE 6.0 is well-designed enough that even the latest Sun Java VM integrates extremely well with IE 6.0.
Also, a nice thing about IE since 4.0 is that patching the browser to correct bugs and add features is very easily done; I'm not sure if Mozilla 1.0 will have that capability.
And they needed to KEEP RUNNING. But they didn't. They chose to stagnate. They let Microsoft catch up, and
clean up their browser, along with adding the ability to properly render buggy code so they would be the "more compatible" browser when netscape would break on poorly written HTML code. They gave Microsoft the chance to play the "embrace and extend" game and were forced to switch into playing catchup themselves. And that's a game Microsoft can play forever.
IIRC they didn't *choose* to stagnate but they did choose to completely rewrite their browser (something that is almost never a good idea). They needed to stay ahead of IE with features and standards instead of waisting months and months rewriting. This is what let Microsoft catch up.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Didn't Netscape make the move over to a free liscense before AOL bought them? So that means damages are $0. Additionally, if Microsoft hadn't been whooping up on poor little Netscape, wouldn't it have cost AOL more $$$ to buy the company? I can't fathom this scenario: since you saved us money, you have to pay us. Lastly, an open source community shouldn't support this. One of the most successful pieces of OSS ever is Mozilla. I would suggest that Mozilla's success was driven by the fact that Netscape commercially was a failure.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
At the time, Microsoft also had IE version 4 out for Solaris, but it wasn't very good either. Even the Windows versions were not stable. I started using IE because Netscape (4.06?) would often encounter an apparent thread deadlock when the Java VM started.
Netscape's versions 4.7x are decent, and I still use 4.76 to read email when I boot to Windows. A bad browser will discourage most people from continuing to use it, especially if a more functional and less buggy alternative is available for free.
end of line
In related news today, Microsoft brought an anti-trust suit before federal court today against the AOL-Time Warner company.
A Microsoft spokesperson, who for legal reasons must remain un-named, was quoted saying "America Online practices anti-competitive practices, including the way its software sets itself up, taking control over the way your computer connects to the Internet, and refusing to allow other Internet service providers to be used to their maximum potential. This has negatively impacted our MSN Internet service, as well as indirectly cost us time and money as a result of customers calling to complain about incompatibilities with America Online that they believe to be a fault with our products."
Not to be to dismisive, but the Cato institute are single minded appologists for all things corperate.
I perused the pdf. Repeatedly they assert that all the bad behaviors of monopoly abuse (price fixing, tieing, etc) will magically be corrected by the "market". They never address the charge that monopolies eliminate the "free"(libre) in "free market". They blindly claim that market magic will fix any problems. Even if that claim is true, it is only after protracted distortions and damage to the markets and competion.
Anti-Trust laws exist for very good reasons based on a long history of dramatically bad consequences. They are not a result of some covert socialist agenda.
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
"As others have pointed out, it was not so much that Netscape was not able to keep up with Microsoft and IE, but rather that IE was being given away for free. "
If this was the only issue, Linux would be dominant on the desktop by now.
"To make money instead from the server software."
Which they lost marketshare to Apache, which was also free, but also had the added luxury of being "good enough."
The thing to remember is that the WWW market started with free clients and free servers. So early adopters were used to getting stuff for free. Netscape didn't make a compelling enough argument for people to buy stuff from them only, even though they did try vendor-lockin by promoting non-standard HTML tags and other tricks.
" I mean, for a while I believe that AOL was still distributing IE with AOL (due to a prior agreement), "
I don't know if AOL distributes IE, but they still require it. I believe with version 7.0 they now also support Netscape. Nothing to do with agreements rather just convenience.
"Now, however, with the Department of Justice and this lawsuit, it would seem that AOL is getting more use out of the Netscape name in the lawsuits than it ever did as an actual product. "
This is true, and works more against AOL than for. They certainly have no tried to compete since '98 when they dumped the source onto the world and said "Here, go see if you can make this work."
"Is is not possible that AOL saw Netscape as a way to get some settlement money from Microsoft?"
It's called the "sue-Microsoft" business plan. It's pretty popular these days.
It would be really interesting to analyze user's browser patterns and see how many pages people use frequently don't work correctly in Mozilla.
I hope AOL is doing this.
"If you had actually followed the events at the time, you'd know that the only reason Netscape "stumbled" was because Microsoft came along and put ten times more money into the development of IE while giving it away for free."
_ ni ghtmare.php
No, you obviously weren't around then to follow the events.
Netscape stumbled on a number of issues. They were arrogant and lost the contract for AOLs browser as a result.
They were arrogant and refused to work with the W3C standards body. Netscape 4.x was especially bad because they had lost a battle with the W3C over CSS and released a product which had major kludges in it.
Articles such as this one:
http://www.wowwebdesigns.com/power_guides/worst
Detail most of the problems that Netscape caused for themselves.
"As a result their browser became a buggy mess as they didn't have the time to do the decent development there were doing before. "
But somehow Microsoft had the time. Basically you are agreeing that Netscape's problems were caused because their developers were not as good. We should punish Microsoft because they are more competent?
Since when does that promote a competitive marketplace?
"I don't know if AOL distributes IE, but they still require it. I believe with version 7.0 they now also support Netscape. Nothing to do with agreements rather just convenience."
From a Wired article from 1998:
"In 1996, AOL agreed to bundle Netscape in its software package but backed away from the deal when Microsoft upped the ante, offering AOL a prime piece of Windows screen real estate. AOL's decision is a primary element of the government's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft."
There may be a more relevant article, this was one of the first that appeared in a Google search.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Comparisons with Apache are not appropriate, MS did not (and still does not) enjoy a monopoly in the server marker. NT comming bundled IIS has little effect on Apache (or iPlanet), if the majority of servers ran NT it would be different.
If you do look at the NT market IIS *has* pushed other competators out. Apache on NT for example is mainly used as a development platform before deploying on *nix.
In the findings of fact it was found that MS witheld API's from Netscape, API's that made IIS run faster on NT than Netscape's server. Netscape's business model was a razor/blades one. Make little money from the browser (free for personal use, $$$ for corporates) and sell the server. Bundling IIS with NT kept Netscape out of that market, bundling IE on the desktop made it make less sense use Netscape's Server as it would be talking to MS's browser.
I'm not saying Netscape was a saint or didn't make plenty of it's own screw ups but MS did leverage their monopoly on the desktop against Netscape's browser and did hide API's on NT to keep Netscape's server out of the NT market. The case against MS is that it used it monopoly in one area to extend into another, that is illegal.
Australian? Join EFA
I don't understand this. Why is no one currently sueing for the specs to MS only formats. At least Makeing it part of the Deal. The specs for doc files and the likes are the only thing I can see of intrest. That and maybe the API for windows and Direct X. I belive that would help out more people(Kword) then brakeing MS up or giveing a billon to schools(20 Million is MS land) --------------- I don't know who you are: stop calling me!
In short, you have to believe what they want you to believe.
Yeah, in short: If you are a sucker. Why would you believe it? No one says you have to.
Being a large company makes people not trust you. Look at the gov't. Who believes anything they say?
AOL has had a great reputation of doing business with everyone. In fact, on the netscape page I see xbox listed as one of the highest searched items. Looks to me they don't mind. Considering this isn't a paid spot, makes you wonder.
Monster.com was the pop-up when I visted the page. Not a TW company is it?
Doesn't Netscape come with bookmarks for a number of companies? The only links I see on my 'Favorites' from a fresh XP install is Microsoft sites.
Get your Unix fortune now!
But the case was upheld on appeal. Unanimously!
BTW the cause of most wars is greed nothing else. Usually though the ruthless and evil will always triumph over the weak and pacifists. In the real world evil always wins. Teach that as a lesson to every kid you know.!
War is necrophilia.
Man you are one confused motherfucker. How old are you? Think back (if you were alive back then) we are talking about netscape 4.x vs IE 3.x Opera did not exist back then.
War is necrophilia.
Okay, Mr. Anonymous Coward, educate me.
Let's take the Way-Back Machine back to the year 1996. You're in charge of Netscape. Microsoft has just targeted your company as a threat, and they're pouring all their Windows revenues into the effort of writing software that duplicates every popular feature of your most successful products -- and they're giving it all away for free.
Now tell me how you're going to produce superior products AND capture more market share when your largest competitor has twenty times your revenue and is spending it all to wipe you out of existence. Oh, and you're not allowed to charge any money for your flagship products (browsers or servers) because Microsoft is giving away workalikes for free. Oh, and Microsoft is also forcing your largest customers to stop doing business with you, because they're so dependent on Windows that they can't risk losing their Microsoft contracts.
Ball's in your court, bucko.
That's true, but this stems from a firm committment to libertarianism, not as an end unto itself. At least, that's what they tell everyone.
Arguments for this sort of extreme laissez-faire capitalism can be deceptively convincing (read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, with contributions from a guy named Greenspan--yes, that Greenspan--to see what I mean.) Do not be fooled. This body of thought is by and large discounted by serious economists today; they have for the most part stopped trying to argue that government regulation is not an important and indispensible tool in attaining economic health and focused instead on how best to use it. It's interesting that the two pre-eminent libertarian poster children of the 1990s--Enron and Argentina--crashed and burned within weeks of each other recently. Check out a great Paul Krugman column entitled "Laissez not fair" which discusses this in more detail.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Actaully, if NS was the better browser, people would've *continue* use it.
Even if they had IE installed.
It was the IE was so much better that made people use it.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Yeah, but that means one of them will win :(
deus does not exist but if he does
I wonder why, if it is so good ?
Windows 95 upgrade... They are getting hard to find as it isn't a current model, but Windows 95 was sold without a browser. I still have a running copy.
The truth shall set you free!
For the last few years I've resisted pressures from my partner to optimise our puny website to be more IE/broadband friendly. I've found over time that when your site displays correctly with netscape 4.x browsers, it usualy displays correctly on everthing. I try to make sure every page is standards compliant.
Over all I still see the trend going toward a more diverse browser population, and most user still using dial-up connections. Personaly I use three browsers, chosing each based on experience with my favorite sites, I uses Opera predominatly.
Postnuke driven sites are interesting because there is usualy a stats link which shows what browsers and OS'es have viewed the site. This could be interesting to watch as AOL users are loaded up with gecko!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What killed netscape was the fact that Microsoft installed IE on all machines, AND THEN FORBID ALL OEM's FROM THE OPTION OF INSTALLING NETSCAPE TOO.[*]
When your competetior is a monopoly, and contractually forbids all of their customers to not install their competetiors product....
.... you'd never guess how quickly the competetior can die.
How often have you ever seen a PC from an OEM preloaded with real nonMS software. (Things like AOL installers and cheezy games/demos don't count.) I'm talking about office suites, web browsers, word processors, web servers, etc.
[*] I am stating stuff I heard second hand, and have not researched personally. So this may be completely wrong.
If AOL wanted more people to use Netscape, why would'nt they bundle that with their CD's that float all over the place(they make great coasters)? If MS can bundle IE with their OS, why can't AOL bundle NS w/ their mini-internet-OS?
.02$
What's the point of getting pissed at MS for crunching down on NS, when AOL won't even support the product, by putting it with AOL??
Just my
But that's not the point. Microsoft was not content to win on the technical merits of their software. The point is that they leveraged their monopoly position in OS to strong-arm the distribution channel into locking Netscape out
Not necessarily. As a Mac user, ie someone whose OS is not a Microsoft product, I know that Netscape sucks ass compared to IE. Sorry, but its the truth. Both are installed by default.
This is not the whole market, I realize, but one a level playing field Netscape gets beaten like a wayward stepchild. Communicator is just _not_ a good product.
(Oh, for the record, I'm posting this from OmniWeb in OS X, which is flagging both Netscape and Microsoft as misspellings. Hee hee hee.)
--saint
Apparently a really good book on the issue is 'Competing on Internet Time Lessons from the Netscape' battles with Microsoft'
l
I found a short review that talks about it:
http://www.timescomputing.com/19990113/eml1.htm
"The book also chronicles how Netscape's arrogance caused it to often violate another cardinal principle of competing on Internet time: Build external relationships to compensate for limited internal resources. Ironically, Netscape rejected repeated overtures from AOL for a strategic alliance.
That mistake cost Netscape the opportunity to conquer another 10-12 million users and allowed Microsoft to gain ground rapidly."
There's a difference between a legal monopoly and an illegal monopoly. AOL Time Warner isn't actively trying to make itself the ONLY news source.
That's because, unlike the computer software industry, the media business has clear-cut laws preventing any one media company from owning too many outlets in a given market, or more than one outlet of the same media in the same market. It's impossible to have a real illegal media monopoly, but given the diversity and breadth of AOL-TW's holdings, they are as close as we're going to get.
Microsoft is actively trying to make itself the only EVERYTHING
Do you realize what that makes you sound like? An anti-MS zealot freak. EVERYTHING? Are you serious? Even if MS controlled every single aspect of computing, that would still not be everything. Seriously, get outside once in a while.
Don't make comments when you don't accurately understand the difference between legal and illegal monopolies.
I don't remember seeing anything about legality in the post I responded to. Thanks for coming back with a bullshit know-it-all response, based on no fact, answering no questions asked, and insulting the poster, though.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I' really surprised this took so long. With the justice/states win, it's a much simpler action. Netscape (or whatever it's called *this* week) really just has to prove harm and damages, whereas Caldera faced the entire burdern for DR-DOS--and settled for over half a Billion (low, I think).
I really expected this, at the latest, after the appellate court upheld the findings of fact. Regardless of the remedy imposed (there will be a remedy; the question is what. And contrary to popular belief and MS press, the appellate court did *not* rule out a breakup; they tossed everything done after the judge went wild), the basic findings still exist.
MS was found to take actions for the sole purpose of harming netscape as a product to remove it as a threat to Windows (not to explorer; it was the weapon, not an end). MS just can't spin this away.
However, netscape didn't make *all* that much on the browsers; though they got revenue, the browser's real purpose was to create a market for server software (and later, to grab eyeballs for ads by controlling the startup page). I'm not sure that there's that much to be recovered here (though it will be tripled).
hawk, esq.
Yeah, kinda like the '96 US Presidential elections.
I don't really LIKE Clinton, but at least he's not Bob Dole.
Pooty tweet
IE5 Web Accessories
;)
I am not sure if these are available for IE6. Apparently I'm still running 5.5 on this computer.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!