After reading it all, it looks like a near sweep against M$. I found just 2 points in M$'s favor in it:
They didn't pursue control of ALL web presentation.
"384. Although the suspicion lingers, the evidence is insufficient to find that Microsoft's ambition is a future in which most or all of the content available on the Web would be accessible only through its own browsing software. The evidence does, however, reveal an intent to ensure that if and when full-featured, server-based applications begin appearing in large numbers on the Web, the number of them relying solely on middleware APIs (such as those exposed by Navigator) will be too few to attenuate the applications barrier to entry."
)
They did encourage lower browser prices and provide competition (and an alternative) to Netscape for a time.
"408. The debut of Internet Explorer and its rapid improvement gave Netscape an incentive to improve Navigator's quality at a competitive rate. The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate charge increased general familiarity with the Internet and reduced the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least in part because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, thereby benefitting consumers."
M$ must see it the same way as they're already pointing out number two in a press conference as the "favorable aspects" of the ruling. I'd like to see them try to tout number one too.:-)
Actually, the FoF goes way farther than I expected it to. Not only does it say, "Yes, M$ has a monopoly; yes, M$ used that monopoly to force IE on people." (Which I thought was the point, I may not understand the law well.) It also states that M$ did all these things specifically and delibrately to protect its OS monopoly from even a potential threat of competition.
We should also note that the FoF very clearly talks about "PC Systems" as opposed to server systems. I wonder what effect this case (which does focus on browser/desktop) will have on Win2K/Office2K/ActiveDirectory which, IMHO, includes a very clear attempt to use the Windows and Office monopoly to force people away from Internet standard services (DNS/DHCP/LDAP) toward the M$ Win2K "enhanced" versions.
The FoF document is clearly the work of a non-computer person who has labored very hard to understand the complexities of the industry--and done a good job of it.
Slashdot Mirror
IE worked the first time I tried, while Mozilla & wget did not.
However, wget did work on the 7th try and IE failed on the second try.
So it looks more like it's a load share issue rather than IE favoritism.
- They didn't pursue control of ALL web presentation. )
- They did encourage lower browser prices and provide competition (and an alternative) to Netscape for a time.
M$ must see it the same way as they're already pointing out number two in a press conference as the "favorable aspects" of the ruling. I'd like to see them try to tout number one too.Actually, the FoF goes way farther than I expected it to. Not only does it say, "Yes, M$ has a monopoly; yes, M$ used that monopoly to force IE on people." (Which I thought was the point, I may not understand the law well.) It also states that M$ did all these things specifically and delibrately to protect its OS monopoly from even a potential threat of competition.
We should also note that the FoF very clearly talks about "PC Systems" as opposed to server systems.
I wonder what effect this case (which does focus on browser/desktop) will have on Win2K/Office2K/ActiveDirectory which, IMHO, includes a very clear attempt to use the Windows and Office monopoly to force people away from Internet standard services (DNS/DHCP/LDAP) toward the M$ Win2K "enhanced" versions.
The FoF document is clearly the work of a non-computer person who has labored very hard to understand the complexities of the industry--and done a good job of it.
Retief