Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Antitrust Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Dead at 76
McGruber writes "The NY Times has the news that federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who ruled in 2000 that Microsoft was a predatory monopoly and must be split in half, has died. He was 76 years old. 'A technological novice who wrote his opinions in longhand and used his computer mainly to e-mail jokes, Judge Jackson refuted Microsoft's assertion that it was impossible to remove the company's Internet Explorer Web browser from its operating system by doing it himself. When a Microsoft lawyer complained that too many excerpts from Bill Gates's videotaped deposition — liberally punctuated with the phrase "I don't remember" — were shown in the courtroom, Judge Jackson said, "I think the problem is with your witness, not the way his testimony is being presented."'"
They might be more competitive now had they followed his suggestion to split the company into 3 parts for OS, apps, and services.
I never understood why Microsoft forced Internet Explorer inside Windows. Did they fear Netscape's "API" would really threaten them ?
Two things would survive a nuclear war, roaches and Microsoft Office.
I hate to tell you, but they only exist in the past. Afterlife is a fairy tale crutch for alive people to cope with death.
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that "TeePee" Jackson wouldn't have a lot of good things to say about Apple and Jobs either, with its lock-in between hardware and software, and for a while such a large market share on smartphones and tablets that anti-monopoly legislation might well come into play.
In other unrelated news Ballmer has perfected his chair throwing skills....
For some reason chair skills are very important to MS's upper management.
Look at BillG showing off his chair skills:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaCOHT0pmI
This space for rent.
Good times.
Technological novice or not he had a better handle on the definition of "operating system" than many of the readers here. A solitaire game or web browser is not part of the computer operating system but instead just an application that comes with it. Rely on textbook definitions and not MS marketing or RMS seeing an opportunity to claim credit for a different project.
He showed bias before the final judgement, and the ruling was nullified. It was the last best chance to break the back of the beast. Instead, we have had to put up with them for these last 13 years. They lied, cheated and stole their way to market domination. There are *hundreds* of companies and *thousands* of people they cheated and stole from. Not just Borland and Stac Electronics and IBM and DrDos and Broderbund. Not just FoxSoft and Adobe, hundreds of others.
his botch may have been the downfall of the beast.
As others have already mentioned: Microsoft is in decline. Between Windows 8 and the Xbox One, few if any consumers are interested in their products for the sake of their products anymore. In their hubris they've taken a shotgun to their own foot and are repeatedly pulling the trigger.
Apple is everything Microsoft was not allowed to be a decade ago.
Not defending Apple here, but one element of anti-trust is based on market share.
MS was/is in the 90 percent range of the OS market share and Apple was/is still only in the single digit market share.
MS did (still does) much much more evil than just blocking competing browsers, while also having a monopoly, hence the anti-monopoly ruling.
The initial IE was purchased from Spyglass for a small sum plus royalties on sales. Needless to say they were screwed. When Microsoft later claimed it was an integral part of the operating system, Spyglass claimed the royalty on a basis of Microsoft's Windows sales. This was settled out of court, but some damn fine cars were seen driving the roads of Naperville, Illinois, soon thereafter.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Microsoft was doing embrace, extend and extinguish. They should have known better than leave out the .dll Netscape uses. Glad they got bit. Now only if more judges would rule against other monopolies and oligopolies. We have broadband without competition because when the state competes, it is unfair to Comcast. The cell phone carriers lock you into a contract, but you can't leave the contract even if they're not holding up their end of the agreement. Since the corporations bought out the government, there is like no regulation anymore.
There is nothing wrong with leaving IE on every OS and really if there is no IE how am I going to download Firefox?
Afterlife is a fairy tale. That's a scientific fact
LOL. The problem lots of folks around here have is that religion is not a disprovable theory. Your "scientific" fact needs a little work.
And yes, not only was the flamebait mod deserved, but your original post, your AC follow up, and my post here are all off topic. Get over it.
Coincidence or plot by Microsoft? You decide.
"In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com"
Fuck You.
There is no more an Afterlife than there is a Priorlife. Afterlife is a fairy tale. That's a scientific fact.
No, it's a conjecture that is supported by the scientific method. It's got strong scientific support ... too bad there are idiots like you that don't understand the difference between science proof and objective fact. They're USUALLY the same thing, but it is important to know when they're different.
... stop.
In other words: You give atheists everywhere a bad name. Just
If "one element of anti-trust" was "based on market share", unacceptable market share would be explicitly defined in statute.
Just like Standard Oil, MS was targeted by government because it didn't play by the government rules, didn't "share" part of its success with the politicians the same way other companies did.
This is destruction of private property rights, nothing else. Government has no place in 'fighting monopolies', when in reality it doesn't fight monopolies it creates them, and the companies that it does destroy are those who are not paying bribes big enough to prevent the destruction.
roman_mir
Judge Jackson put up with all kinds of crap during the antitrust trial that would have garnered normal people punishment for contempt of court. One of the more ridiculous examples was when Microsoft execs presented a forged video as evidence in the trial. Not only was the video doctored, it was doctored in a bad, amateurish manner, just like their software. Even at the time it was a puzzle why that went unpunished. Now we can see that was just standard operating procedures for M$.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
There was very little alternative on the desktop when Microsoft was convicted. However Apple has a very strong competitor in both Android and Samsung. That's the difference.
Try reading the findings of fact and focus specifically on applications barrier to entry. Moving from iOS to Android is not nearly as difficult as moving from Windows to Linux or OS9 was in 2000.
Microsoft also deliberately, not once but three times, disrupted the development of middleware that would have made the migration easier. Now whether you think that any of the middleware (Netscape, Java and Intel's cross-platform device driver framework) was crap or not is irrelevant. Microsoft did this to prevent competitive threats from arising and to maintain their illegally gained market share.
Apple have tried to disrupt Android but have failed, and they have also not prevented software that allows cross-platform development. It's all in the findings of fact which you clearly haven't read.
Did the police check if the judge received any bread as a gift recently?
Bill Gates might have had Monsanto send him "special" GMO bread.
Your sense of humour chip is malfunctioning. You need to go in for repairs immediately.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
From another obituary, apparantly one of his jokes:
"The judge had a lively sense of humor. The Washington Post reported that he once told of a law professor, an appellate judge and a trial judge who went duck hunting. When a bird flew over, the law professor referred to a textbook. By the time he looked up, the duck was gone. When a second bird appeared, the appellate judge studied relevant precedents, and the same thing happened.
The trial judge had no scholarly compunctions when a third bird flew into range. He pushed the other two aside, raised his shotgun and blew the bird from the sky.
“I hope to hell that was a duck,” he said. "
Wonder what would have happened if his ruling, (to split MS into separate 'Windows' and 'Office' divisions) would have stood?
I suspect both a better 'Office and a better 'Windows'...
Ok, that's just total nonsense. Microsoft operating system and applications are, simply put, not known for their stability. I can't even imagine you typing that with a straight face.
Yeah, sure. They just haven't been able to break into the mobile device market while that market is in the process of devouring their core business. No big deal, right?
To be fair to the judge, he was the victim of a focused smear campaingn by MS. MS was fighting for its life and did not scruple at using every dirty trick it could.
MS complained about several interviews that Judge Jackson gave with journalists, in which the judge uttered some blunt and unflattering comments about Microsoft and its icon, Bill Gates. The judge said that Gates had a Napoleon complex, that Gates's "testimony is inherently without credibility," and he likened Microsoft's behavior to that of street gangs and drug dealers.
However, the judge's interviews and comments were made after he had heard all the evidence and the cases were closed. He decided that MS was not telling the truth, and that was his job. His only mistake was in granting the interviews before he issued his final judgment.
The judge was careless, certainly, but his decision should have been allowed to stand.
Hate to rain on your parade, but MS will remain very viable in the near future. They may be suffering a loss of mindshare, but the profits are still rolling in and are likely to keep rolling in for the future.
While sales of Win8 is slow, a majority of desktops still sport a variant of WinX as their OS. At some point, it is a certainty their users will want to upgrade and there is no significant competition for WinX right now. Both Lunux and iOS are relatively niche products.
It is still to early to call on Xbox One - while consumer market is heavily negative at the moment, it only ships in November and there is plenty of time for MS to try and catch up. Anedoctal evidence seems to show that most gamers prefer the Xbox One hardware and games, but hate MS policies which can be changed.
Further, any growth for Android is a win for MS. Many Android hardware makers have a licensing patent agreements with MS and MS earns for every device they make.
While reception to Office365 is unenthusiastic, for many people there is no other viable alternative to Office. MS knows, and is banking on this to be their bread-and-butter.
The idea the browser could not be separated was a fraud. Microsoft had just gotten done spending years developing and pushing its COM interface technology, and IBrowser was its flagship plug-and-play example. Anybody should have been able to slap a different browser in there.
Whether the company should be "forbidden" from including a browser is a sepsrate issue. Security problems with IE (drive-by web page view hijackings, for example) probably did more to drive people to non-IE browsers than any judicial fiats.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
My personal favorite is the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco:
http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2012/12/about-ms-os2-20-fiasco-px00307-and-dr.html
only if you believe that time is linear... Silly flat earther.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Sorry, the sense of humor chip has been replaced by the government emergency-alert/continuous-surveillance chip.
"MS was/is in the 90 percent range of the OS market share and Apple was/is still only in the single digit market share."
In what market? The crux of the problem is that Microsoft used it's operating system monopoly to push into the browser market.
But is this really any different than Apple using it's digital music player (iPod) or digital music store (iTunes) monopolies that were in the 90% marketshare range to push into the Smartphone and digital video and eBooks markets?
I think there's a fair point to be made that Apple has definitely leveraged monopolies it has had to enter new markets in exactly the same way Microsoft leveraged it's operating system monopoly to try and take browser marketshare.
This has become pretty prominent with eBooks in that they are being investigated for illegal market manipulation, but this isn't the same as anti-trust legislation used against Microsoft. In fact, one might argue that if Apple had been properly and correctly investigated for anti-trust violations it may not have ever engaged in eBook price fixing that led to increased eBook prices for consumers in the first place.
I really don't think there's a reasonable argument that Apple is somehow different from Microsoft, it clearly has had monopolies in some markets, and it clearly has leveraged those monopolies to gain advantages in others, sometimes abusively so.
Then you'll realise that YES, Microsoft DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE.
The way active desktop was done also indicates the cluelessness of microsoft on how the network works. That ONLY makes sense on a completely air-gapped private network. For which you weren't licensed...
But guess what: your PC builder will install them for you.
He can do the same for your web browser too. But Microsoft told him he could not install whatever browser he wanted for his customers, to differentiate his offerings from others and instead had to use Microsofts required browser.
And without that copyright, Microsoft wouldn't even exist.
"I have survived your predecessors, boy, and I will survive you!"
Companies which take the long view always win.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I do like the fact that Microsoft jumped through such hoops to get vendor lock-in, that all these years later it bit them in the butt because corporations are hanging on to XP simply because of non-standards compliant IE 6...which they tied to the OS. Hahahaha.
The real obstacle to Microsoft on the desktop over the next few decades is not Linux or OS X, it is prior versions of Windows that had some feature that won't work in a new version. Again, Hahahaha.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
You know how annoying it is when people try to teach you all about their religious beliefs? You know how you get sick of hearing about Jesus/Allah?
That's exactly how other people feel about you when you start to proselytize with your beliefs. I won't wave my religion in your face and would appreciate if you would extend the same courtesy.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
May he rest eternally, viewing the blue screen of death.
Modern anti-trust is mainly based on "market power". Apple qualifies easily.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You're right. Religiousnuts are already in the minority in this country, they're an endangered species. We should be more sensitive.
So buy an Android device that doesn't have those restrictions but has the same functionality. It's hard to be anti-competitive when you have several legitimate competitors. Microsoft had no legitimate competition, any pretense that OS9/OSX or Linux were a drop-in replacement for Windows was just laughable.
And comparing Microsoft or Apple to corporations who have caused the deaths of millions is just ludicrous.
But is this really any different than Apple using it's digital music player (iPod) or digital music store (iTunes) monopolies that were in the 90% marketshare range to push into the Smartphone and digital video and eBooks markets?
A main differences are that you don't have to use any or all of Apple's ecosystem. You want a digital music player that's not Apple; buy someone else. You want music that's not iTunes; buy someone else. You want some OS other than Windows when you buy a PC from Dell, HP, IBM, etc; No.
I think there's a fair point to be made that Apple has definitely leveraged monopolies it has had to enter new markets in exactly the same way Microsoft leveraged it's operating system monopoly to try and take browser marketshare.
Not exactly the same unless you have proof that Apple interfered with Amazon or Google or Microsoft when they set up their music stores. Or that they tried to block Sansa, Archos, etc from making or selling their music players. Or that they prevented Nokia, Motorola, Sony, from setting up their own music stores; incidentally I had a Verizon music store on my dumb Verizon Motorola way before iTunes/iPhone. It was $4 a track and I could not play the track outside of my phone.
This has become pretty prominent with eBooks in that they are being investigated for illegal market manipulation, but this isn't the same as anti-trust legislation used against Microsoft. In fact, one might argue that if Apple had been properly and correctly investigated for anti-trust violations it may not have ever engaged in eBook price fixing that led to increased eBook prices for consumers in the first place.
Are you implying that MS was improperly investigated?
I really don't think there's a reasonable argument that Apple is somehow different from Microsoft, it clearly has had monopolies in some markets, and it clearly has leveraged those monopolies to gain advantages in others, sometimes abusively so.
The problem is "absusive". Monopolies can exist; where companies like MS were sued was how they treated partners and competitors. It isn't abusive to offer an advantage like vertical integration. If MS had simply packaged IE with Windows that might have been okay. Threatening OEMs that MS would raise their prices if they installed Netscape was abusive. Working with Intel to undermine Netscape was abusive.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There is, apparently, no shortage of impolite fucktards.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"A main differences are that you don't have to use any or all of Apple's ecosystem. You want a digital music player that's not Apple; buy someone else. You want music that's not iTunes; buy someone else. You want some OS other than Windows when you buy a PC from Dell, HP, IBM, etc; No."
That argument doesn't make sense because Linux, Unix, OS/2 and Mac OS were all available as alternatives during the anti-trust investigation. Microsoft having 90% of the market didn't change the fact 10% was comprised of alternatives, just as Apple having 90% of the portable media player market didn't change the fact 10% was comprised of alternatives. There were alternatives available in both cases, they just weren't used as much. You didn't have to use Windows, the problem was simply that most people did, just like you didn't have to use an iPod, or iTunes, even though most people did. It doesn't matter that Dell/HP didn't supply non-Windows machines, that was never an issue in itself of the original anti-trust investigation - there were plenty of stores that only sold Apple media players because of exclusivity agreements, but again, it's not really relevant to the fact of what really got Microsoft hauled in for, which was almost identical to what Apple got away with.
"Are you implying that MS was improperly investigated?"
Not in the slightest, I'm saying that Apple wasn't correctly and properly investigated, which is kind of why I typed exactly that.
"The problem is "absusive". Monopolies can exist; where companies like MS were sued was how they treated partners and competitors. It isn't abusive to offer an advantage like vertical integration."
I think you may have a rather one-sided pro-Apple view of the world. Have you forgotten how Apple treated Adobe effectively killing off Flash? Have you forgotten how Apple was rapped by the European courts by not charging fair pricing to the UK market on iTunes music? Have you forgotten how Apple is currently being run through the courts because of the way they acted with eBooks against Amazon? If you think Apple hasn't engaged in abusive practices then you've been living under a rock. Some of what they have done is frankly arguably even worse than what Microsoft did - they killed off Flash which was akin to killing off Netscape, and then went and fixed eBook prices and the like on top.
You're only looking at half the picture, you're blanking from your mind rather important incidents of abuse by Apple that are rather well documented. If you blank those out then of course things look different, but if you live outside the reality distortion field and in reality like the rest of us then it's kind of hard to miss the blatant similarities and contradictions.
"Good.....good..."
Your message would clearly benefit from an improved TCP/IP stack. RIP, I too use slashdot mainly for posting jokes.
I remember following the MS antitrust trial and hearing about him falling asleep on numerous occasions. I guess now that he's dead he can sleep as much as he wants.
I wonder how many people of his caliber are still out there serving as judges and i pray to god that i never have to deal with one of them
That argument doesn't make sense because Linux, Unix, OS/2 and Mac OS were all available as alternatives during the anti-trust investigation.
I take it that you didn't read the findings of fact. Judge Jackson addressed this point. Back when MS was sued could a consumer get an OS other than Windows when buying a x86 PC from an OEM? No. They could buy an Apple which wasn't x86. The court case was always about consumers being harmed when it came to x86 PCs.
Microsoft having 90% of the market didn't change the fact 10% was comprised of alternatives, just as Apple having 90% of the portable media player market didn't change the fact 10% was comprised of alternatives.
The problem isn't just market share. Before a company is legally defined as having a monopoly there is a 3 part test. 1) Does the company have a high enough market share to control the market. 2) Is the barrier to entry high enough to discourage competition? 3) Do suitable alternatives exist? While Apple has a high market share there is some debate as to whether it is controlling. MS controlled the OS for all OEMs. As for part 2, the highest barrier to entry for music really is the consent of the content providers which isn't in Apple's hands. For OS, development with all the drivers and software was the highest barrier in the MS case. The last part is that there are plenty of alternatives if a user wanted digital music: Microsoft, Napster, Amzaon, Walmart, etc. There was no alternative really to MS Windows when it came to consumers.
I think you may have a rather one-sided pro-Apple view of the world. Have you forgotten how Apple treated Adobe effectively killing off Flash?
Apple had many issues with Flash on their devices: battery life, stability, security, etc. Were these real issues or not? It was their decision not to allow Flash. You could get Flash on their computers. Just because you don't like the end result doesn't mean there were real concerns.
Have you forgotten how Apple was rapped by the European courts by not charging fair pricing to the UK market on iTunes music?
Again, where MS got into anti-trust issues was not how they dealt with their own products. It is how they treated competitors and partners. Threatening Intel that they would favor AMD if Intel developed a Java VM. Do you have proof that Apple threatened their competitors in a similar fashion or did they simply out-compete them on pricing, features, product selection, etc?
Have you forgotten how Apple is currently being run through the courts because of the way they acted with eBooks against Amazon?
First of all, they are being going through a suit now. They could be absolved of all wrongdoing. You are treating it as if Apple was already found guilty. Second, MS was found guilty. Even the appeals court agreed with Judge Jackson's findings. They, however, disagreed with his remedy of breaking up the company. They also disagreed with his conduct especially in talking to reporters. That's a major difference.
If you think Apple hasn't engaged in abusive practices then you've been living under a rock. Some of what they have done is frankly arguably even worse than what Microsoft did - they killed off Flash which was akin to killing off Netscape, and then went and fixed eBook prices and the like on top.
Did Apple ever go to Samsung and tell them to kill of Flash? This was their entire stance on Flash: It's a shitty product; we are not going to use it. Most people would agree with that assessment. That does not make it an anti-trust matter. If you have proof that they crossed the line other than deciding not to use Flash, please present it.
You're only looking at half the picture, you're blanking from your mind rather important incidents of abuse by Apple that are rather well documented. If
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple killed off Flash? Funny, I can watch Flash videos on my MacBook Pro quite easily. On my iPhone, no. Not supported. There do appear to be other phones which support Flash however, and since Apple do not have that 90%+ share of smartphone market, how can they be said to have killed it off? In any case, demanding that a company support some specific feature in some specific product should not be written into law. The market should take care of that.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
"Please present some evidence of abuse in the market other than Apple making decisions about their own products."
Flash and eBooks are Apple's own products? Since when?
Wow you missed the whole point: other than Apple making decisions about their own products. iPhone is Apple's product. They had serious concerns about using Flash on their product. Can you dispute that battery life, security, and stability were not real concerns? Can you proof to anyone that Apple interfered with Flash in other ways like going to Intel and asking them not to work with Adobe?
As for eBooks, you didn't read above did you? Apple says one thing; the DoJ says another. My understanding is the main dispute is intent: the DoJ's position was that Apple colluded with publishers against Amazon. Apple is saying that there was no collusion and that they offered publishers a better deal. We'll see what the court decides. The case does not have a verdict yet.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple didn't kill Flash. The market killed Flash. Apple doesn't carry enough weight to do such a thing on their own--They hold well under 50% of the mobile market, under 10% of the PC market, and a tiny sliver of the Internet at best. They simply made their reasons known for not developing support for it on their mobile devices. Those reasons made sense to lots of other manufacturers and they followed suit. Unless you're alleging that Apple conspired with other big players in the market to bring an end to Adobe Flash--and that the intended result of that conspiracy was to achieve a competitive advantage--then, you're not talking about a competition law issue.
As for e-books, the question is whether their most-favored nation provision was actually an attempt to fix prices. It's an entirely different subject in competition law. Apple had no market power (and to this day, still has no market power) in the e-book market. The entire point was to break Amazon's market power on distribution of e-books. The question that the lawsuit will resolve is whether Apple's efforts to compete were themselves improper. Only a fool would say that the answer to that question is clear at this point.
It's also different in that in an abuse of monopoly action like the one concerning Microsoft, only one party can be the wrongdoer. In the e-book situation, Amazon's predatory pricing may also be a violation of competition law--both companies could wind up in trouble.
that Microsoft would remain a monopoly over my dead body?
Hmm...., there you go Microsoft.
Modern anti-trust is mainly based on "market power". Apple qualifies easily.
Ooh gotcha, despicable Apple astromod.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Technological novice or not he had a better handle on the definition of "operating system" than many of the readers here. A solitaire game or web browser is not part of the computer operating system but instead just an application that comes with it. Rely on textbook definitions and not MS marketing.
Users have never been interested in the geek's textbook definitions.
They are shopping for systems. They like consistency. In-store demos. The out-of-the-box experience. Core applications which share a common look and feel with the desktop or mobile UI. Bare bones doesn't sell worth spit.
Not really. The point wasn't that Apple "caused the deaths of millions," but that it's a behemoth. You can compare a subset of two things without needing to compare everything. Though it probably was an attempt to put a weasel term in more than anything.
So? The beige box under the desk is not a "hard drive" no matter what the lowest common denominator says.
Similarly I don't see why we should accept the MS marketing department definition of an operating system over the textbook one - yet so many have.
So long story short, what you're saying is that as long as there are tiny irrelevant little technicalities, in your world Apple is a completely innocent little puppy?
Get a grip. It doesn't take a genius to realise you're just a fanboy.
Until Netcraft confirms. Have you people gone soft or something?
So long story short, what you're saying is that as long as there are tiny irrelevant little technicalities, in your world Apple is a completely innocent little puppy?
No I'm saying you are ignoring all facts because they don't agree with your world view. You have yet to address any single one of my points and yet you accuse Apple of abuse of monopoly without being unable to demonstrate one behavior where they remotely crossed the line. As for the two points which you going over but fail to address: Choosing not to use Flash isn't an abuse of monopoly power. As for eBooks, we don't have a verdict yet so unless you were omnipotent or present at all the meetings you don't know Apple did or did not do.
First of all Apple has to be a monopoly. Legally they don't meet the requirement seeing as I can walk into any BestBuy today and get a competing media player/smart phone. I can get music from a number of different online music stores. How is that remotely close to MS where even today it is hard to get anything but Windows from an OEM?
Second, having a monopoly is not illegal per se. That is not why MS got in trouble. Abusing that monopoly is where they got in trouble. If MS had simply bundled IE with Windows, they probably would not have been okay. This is a short list of why MS got in trouble and there are probably more examples in the trial transcripts:
Do you have any evidence that Apple did anything remotely resembling these actions other than Apple not using Flash on their mobile devices? Making a preference does not make it an anti-trust matter.
Get a grip. It doesn't take a genius to realise you're just a fanboy.
So you have no evidence and no logical arguments. So all you are reduced to is insulting people because you have nothing?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"You have yet to address any single one of my points"
Because they're almost entirely nonsense and you're waffling on with walls of text about something you don't understand. What'd be the point?
I wont just leave it at that statement, I'll at least offer you the decency of explaining what I mean though with an example, a few posts ago you said:
"I take it that you didn't read the findings of fact. Judge Jackson addressed this point. Back when MS was sued could a consumer get an OS other than Windows when buying a x86 PC from an OEM? No. They could buy an Apple which wasn't x86. The court case was always about consumers being harmed when it came to x86 PCs."
You were making the implication that this was what they were hauled into court over, and what they were judged upon. This is simply false and either an attempt to mislead or just outright ignorance on your behalf. The case was about whether Microsoft abused their monopoly position to unduly give themselves an advantage in the browser market. To judge that to be the case the judge has to first determine that the key premises behind that argument are correct, first and foremost that Microsoft had a monopoly. The point that you quote is simply evidence to that fact, it's simply stating that Microsoft did indeed have a monopoly because no OEMs were offering anything other than Microsoft's operating system - this isn't a finding of illegality in itself but merely establishment of fact so that the judge can then, given that he has now found the premise that they are a monopoly to be true, advance the case to find out if they also abused that monopoly position.
This is an example of why I stopped giving you the credit of proper answers. You either don't understand or are intentionally being misleading, given that how can I expect you to debate the topic rationally? Anyone who feels the need to mislead is debating with clear bias and isn't interested in honest discussion, anyone who feels the need to debate without understanding what they're talking about is just looking to argue for the sake of arguing. Given that, why would I waste my time on full fledged answers if it's clear you're not interested in a proper discussion but rather are simply interested in defending your pet company regardless of the facts?
You're claiming there's nothing to my suggestions that Apple has behaved in an equally anti-competitive manner to Microsoft, if that's true then why have their been rulings against them for price fixing in the UK? Why are they being hauled through the courts over eBook price fixing? Why did the FTC even begin to consider an antitrust probe over their anti-Adobe 3rd party compiler policies if there was nothing in it? Why is the EU currently looking at launching an antitrust investigation? Why was Apple found guilty of antitrust violations in Italy over warranties?
If you were interested in honest debate you'd recognise that Apple has already breached antitrust laws and been found guilty in some jurisdictions, and that it was still being investigated in much bigger probes that may well advance to much firmer action like that Microsoft faced.
Pretending it's not true just highlights the fact you're not interested in honest discussion on the issue, you're simply pretending they haven't already been found guilty of some antitrust violations, and you're claiming that all the others will come to nothing. That's a pretty tall legal claim for someone who doesn't even understand or can't properly represent Jackson's findings of fact.
Given all this do you now understand why I hadn't previously given you a proper answer? If you want to carry on the discussion you'll have to at least explicitly accept that Apple has already been found guilty of some antitrust breaches and is at real risk of being found guilty of even bigger ones to come still. You can't pretend none of this is real and then wonder why someone doesn't bother giving you a proper answer.
The judge also had to decide which market Microsoft had the monopoly. The judge cannot rule that MS had a monopoly on all computers. That would be silly. He had to narrow the market in question to OS on x86 PCs specifically through OEMs. That's why your point on Apple or Linux has no bearing as they were not in the defined market to begin with.
Your contention that somehow Apple abused their monopoly is rather ludicrous if they don't have/didn't have a monopoly to begin with. The 3 part legal test the judge used effectively says Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Thus they cannot abuse a monopoly they don't have, can they? You keep leaping to abuse of monopoly without first establishing whether a monopoly exists. First establish--like the judge--that Apple has a monopoly on music stores. You can't.
This is an example of why I stopped giving you the credit of proper answers. You either don't understand or are intentionally being misleading, given that how can I expect you to debate the topic rationally?
I've addressed every single point of yours. Your answer is I don't understand but you're not going to answer. Am we supposed to read your mind?
Anyone who feels the need to mislead is debating with clear bias and isn't interested in honest discussion, anyone who feels the need to debate without understanding what they're talking about is just looking to argue for the sake of arguing.
What part is misleading? Were any parts of the MS trial untrue? Were the reasons Apple listed for not using Flash misleading? Again you don't address any of this.
Given that, why would I waste my time on full fledged answers if it's clear you're not interested in a proper discussion but rather are simply interested in defending your pet company regardless of the facts?
What facts are untrue? All your answers are basically is I'm wrong but you're not going to say why and you don't feel like discussing it. That's a non-answer. However to justify your non-answer you simply say I'm biased. Yeah, whatever. Maybe it's because you don't have any real answers.
If you were interested in honest debate you'd recognise that Apple has already breached antitrust laws and been found guilty in some jurisdictions, and that it was still being investigated in much bigger probes that may well advance to much firmer action like that Microsoft faced.
You keep accusing Apple of things without any support. When has Apple been found guilty of anti-trust? What behavior has Apple done that crosses the line that hasn't been addressed? Please list one example. You refuse to list one single example.
Pretending it's not true just highlights the fact you're not interested in honest discussion on the issue, you're simply pretending they haven't already been found guilty of some antitrust violations, and you're claiming that all the others will come to nothing. That's a pretty tall legal claim for someone who doesn't even understand or can't properly represent Jackson's findings of fact.
Again, list one thing. All you keep saying is that you're right and I'm wrong but not detailing anything. Sounds to me, you're the one not open to honest debate. If you read the findings of fact, you would have known why the judge limited the market to begin with. The DoJ and the judge was not in court because MS had a monopoly on all computers but a specific market which would have precluded all the examples you gave.
Given all this do you now understand why I hadn't previously given you a proper answer? If you want to carry on the discussion you'll have to at least explicitly accept that Apple has already been found guilty of some antitrust breaches and is at real risk of being found guilty of even bigger ones to come still. You can't pretend none of this is real and then wonder why someone doesn't bother giving you a proper answer.
No. You keep not answering a single thing. You keep evading. You keep making statements that have no support. I suspect it's that you don't have any real answers at all.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I gave you a list of cases where Apple was found guilty or being investigated and rather than accept that, or go Google for confirmation, you just pretend it's outright not true.
This is really the point, this is why you don't deserve proper answers, you seem to want to continue this discussion but as I said before, if you can't even accept reality then what's the point?
There's really no helping you, you're irrationally defending a firm in spite of the facts and that is why you can be clearly defined as nothing more than a pointless irrelevant fanboy. When you're that far gone your opinion is just meaningless and does not matter.
I gave you a list of cases where Apple was found guilty or being investigated and rather than accept that, or go Google for confirmation, you just pretend it's outright not true.
What cases? Flash? That was answered and it was never a case. Is it so hard for you to understand that you don't get everything you want from a company's product. Ford doesn't have to user Bose radios if they don't want to use them. eBooks? That is still in trial meaning there is no verdict. The only thing I didn't answer was the UK pricing: The EU conducted an investigation as it required to when they receive a complaint. Apple was not found guilty as it never went to trial nor was Apple ever indicted. Apple said that the pricing difference was due to their wholesale prices being higher but agreed to lower all prices. This was 5 years ago.
The Commission was satisfied that the price differential was not the result of collusion between Apple and the record companies. The probe "allowed the Commission to clarify that there is no agreement between Apple and the major record companies regarding how the iTunes store is organized in Europe. Rather, the structure of the iTunes store is chosen by Apple to take into account the country-specific aspects of copyright laws," the Commission said. . . It added that it is aware that some record companies, publishers and collecting societies still apply licensing practices which can make it difficult for iTunes to operate stores in a uniform manner in all European countries.
This is really the point, this is why you don't deserve proper answers, you seem to want to continue this discussion but as I said before, if you can't even accept reality then what's the point?
You're being as non-commital as you can be. I wonder if you are one of the SCO lawyers. I think it's because if you actually responded with specifics, you know I'd look up check up on it. If you had any specifics on the MS findings, I would point you to the exact paragraphs that disagree with you.
There's really no helping you, you're irrationally defending a firm in spite of the facts and that is why you can be clearly defined as nothing more than a pointless irrelevant fanboy. When you're that far gone your opinion is just meaningless and does not matter.
I'm the one asking for specifics and logical reasons. The only thing you keep doing is levying insults and not answering a single point. That's all you really have. It's not my opinion by the way. US v Microsoft disagrees with you.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.