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."'"
I never understood why Microsoft forced Internet Explorer inside Windows. Did they fear Netscape's "API" would really threaten them ?
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.
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. "
Part of this might be that the terminology hasn't really kept up with the realities of the situation. Initially an Operating System was literately just the software layer that operated the hardware. But right from the very start there were useful apps and commands baked in that were not strictly required for interfacing with the hardware. And as more and more things got taken for granted as part of the basic computing experience, they got added to the basic level of computer installation, which is the OS.
If you have an operating system, and you add one useful feature to it, you still refer to it as an operating system. And then you add one feature after that but still call it an OS. Then you include a couple useful applications that everyone is installing anyways. And this keeps going for decades. At what point does the collection as a whole no longer count as an 'Operating System'? And what then do we call a complete and useful computer installation that includes a wide range of basic functionality, including applications?
Right, except for their licensing agreements whereby Siri in iOS 7 will be supported by Bing, whereby Facebook is in bed with Microsoft tech (although not a fully committed marriage), and consumers are still buying Xboxes by the hundreds of thousands globally every month... and their Windows Azure platform is already a billion-dollar business (their 15th?), and they've sold more than $1B worth of Surface devices... and everyone still wants their software to be supported on other OSes (e.g. Office for iOS)... not to mention the billions they spend on R&D every quarter via Microsoft Research with no necessary intent of commercializing the advancements themselves.
Yup, sounds like they're in decline.
Judge Jackson put up with all kinds of crap during the antitrust trial that would have garnered normal people punishment for contempt of court. One of the more ridiculous examples was when Microsoft execs presented a forged video as evidence in the trial. Not only was the video doctored, it was doctored in a bad, amateurish manner, just like their software. Even at the time it was a puzzle why that went unpunished. Now we can see that was just standard operating procedures for M$.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
They might be more competitive now had they followed his suggestion to split the company into 3 parts for OS, apps, and services.
to which companies? office to oracle? OS to dell? services to SAP??? oh the humanity!!!
No, silly. Split up into 3 independent companies like AT&T was split up into 7 "Baby Bell" companies.
Which then began the process of all merging to form one big company called AT&T.
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.
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.
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.
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.