This is a good thing for Microsoft to do. Creating partnerships is a good way to benefit from the markets that the other company has.
Hopefully Radio Shack did this out of their own will and *not* because Microsoft told them that if they didn't Radio Shack would be out of business in 3 years. Microsoft wouldn't violate anti-trust laws just after the Judge released the FoF documenting their transgressions in they past, would they?
This is a good thing for Microsoft to do. Creating partnerships is a good way to benefit from the markets that the other company has.
Hopefully Radio Shack did this out of their own will and because Microsoft told them that if they didn't Radio Shack would be out of business in 3 years. Microsoft wouldn't violate anti-trust laws just after the Judge released the FoF documenting their transgressions in they past, would they?
Though the Hon. Judge Jackson feels otherwise, Sun's java model is a product that competes with Windows and has done so for some years
Contrary, Judge Jackson did feel that Java was a competitor to Microsoft Windows platform. That's why Microsoft went to such great lengths to subvert it.
Sun, the manufacturer of StarOffice, has by no means been "prevented from competing", nor is there any realistic means by which MS could accomplish such a feat.
Well, yes, Microsoft hasn't prevented Sun from competing by developing a StarOffice portal, that's agreed. And would seem unlikely that Microsoft would be able to prevent Sun from competing with the StarOffice portal in the future, seeing the nature of the distribution channels. Although, I'll admit, not impossible.
Now, if you are saying that Microsoft hasn't prevented Sun from competing in the market with their Java, I'll let you go read the FoF to find out in what ways Microsoft did that.
Only if consumers prefer MS Office to Star Office will SO go by the wayside.
Only if Microsoft would close of all distribution channels to StarOffice would StarOffice not be able to compete. It has nothing to do with choice or quality. And if Microsoft can be kept from blocking Sun from the distribution channels that are necessary for consumers to get the StarOffice product, I think we'll see more of the 40/60 market share that you'd expect in a market with strong competition.
Why "innovate" when what you have already works and has survived the challenge of a competing system?
Because, uh, Microsoft claims to have a "freedom to innovate". Violating the anti-trust laws *isn't* innovating. And as you so clearly point out, it even destroys the incentive to innovate. So if Microsoft really was interested in innovating, they would have allowed and encouraged other companies to compete with them.
Not having competition, and therefore no innovation hurts consumers and causes advancements in fields to happen in an untimely manner, if not ever.
Which is perfectly above-board, sensible, honestly capitalist, and also their prerogative. This is the way businesses compete.
If you go back to my original post, you'd notice that I pointed this out as a example of the rewards of real competition. Sun here has the same position as AMD. Would we have had cheap "Celeron" chips from Intel if it hadn't been for AMD? I would say most likely not.
but I don't feel you can accuse them of anything illegitimate here. Why attribute it to malice when it's explained by simple stupidity?
My point wasn't to accuse Microsoft of anything at all here. My purpose was to point out that without the innovation that Sun pursued in, we'd have never, or at least not for much longer, seen Microsoft use their "freedom to innovate". And there's nothing wrong with innovating. I believe that Microsoft should and does innovate. I just don't believe it comes very often without competition threatening to innovate first.
Not that I am suggesting such a remedy is unnecessary for other aspects of MS's business.
You inspired faith in me again.:) No one at all, not the DoJ, the judge, or competitors is claiming that Microsoft doesn't have a freedom to innovate. The case was about Microsoft preventing others from competing, which is illegal in America and has nothing to do with your ability to innovate. Indeed, as I tried to point out, the lack of competition often breeds a lack of innovation.
If Microsoft really wants to innovate, the best thing they could do would be to allow and even help competitors compete strongly with them. Then we'd really see some innovation.
As I mentioned previously, it is a symptom of a healthy market that Netscape's existence would pressure MS into responding with a competing product.
Yes, and as I mentioned above, I think that Microsoft had a right to develop IE and compete with Netscape. However, it was illegal for Microsoft to prevent Netscape from competing.
Maybe if they had competed fairly IE would have still been better then Netscape and everyone would have been using it anyways. But we'll never know and now Microsoft is guilty of anti-trust violations. And they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.
I don't want to argue that MS didn't try to supplant Netscape unfairly because they appear to have done so, but there is ample reason to feel that they also produced a better browser while they were at it.
Certainly no one denies that Microsoft was able to develop a quality browser. And no one denies that the browser Microsoft released this year is better then the technology that existed 2 years ago. However, what *can't* be substantiated is whether Netscape would have failed to create a browser better then IE 5 had they been able to compete in the market.
Nope. I think you're wrong here. The market for this is large businesses who have a computer or terminal on each employee's desk.
I am wrong, but only sort of. Actually, there are a few different markets that this will do strongly in. Intranet usage will be huge, I agree.
I just was focusing on one market segment, the one that would tend to use iPhones and set-top boxes. Not to imply that there was any other, or any bigger markets.
You are right about MS being scared about new stuff comming out. But you are wrong about them doing nothing.
For a long time, even after Sun announced their intention to develop an applications portal, Microsoft claimed that consumers *didn't* want to run applications over the web. It wasn't until shortly after Sun's announcement that MS also announced their plans.
We wouldn't have a web-based Office 2000 from Microsoft if it hadn't been for Sun. I think Microsoft made that quite clear before their about-face, that they didn't intend on developing one.
Most of their products were developed, not becuase of Microsoft innovation, but because someone else announced that they were going to do it, or were already doing it and Microsoft wanted that market, possibly to also protect the markets they had.
Look at IE... it is way better then any version of netscape ever was.
First, would there have even been an IE if Netscape hadn't existed. Microsoft developed IE simply because they were scared of Netscape.
Second, Netscape 1,2 and 3 were undoubtedly better then IE. It wasn't until Microsoft had closed Netscape out of the market that Netscape didn't have the funding to be able to continue to innovate. The only reason that IE is better then Netscape now is that Microsoft cut off Netscapes only way of generating the income to continue to innovate.
To say that IE is better then Netscape because Netscape wasn't as good is like me tripping you in a race and claiming that you lost because you were too clumsy.
Also, when Mozilla comes out, then we'll see which is better:)
Why would you ever want to do that when you can run the apps on your PC, or telephone (next years model:)
Uh, what do you think would be cheaper and easier to implement, and much easier to sell to consumers. A phone capable of running Office 2000, or a phone capable of displaying Office 2000 running on a server across the web.
What about a set top box like WebTV. Is it more logical to be able to run Office 2000 locally, or over the web? I have the feeling that most consumers don't care where it's running as long as it is there.
Especially - why would you want to pay good money for the privilege?
You have to consider the market that these vendors are focusing on. Definately low-tech consumers, who just want a low-cost way to get on the web, send email, and do word processing. That don't want to deal with installing software and keeping it up to date. A $99 box with a $20 monthly fee is exactly what will interest them.
I've installed O2K on many computers in my office, as well as my home computer. Is there a significant improvement being made for a "new-improved" version by the end of 2K?? Curious...
Yes, it will reduce your TCO dramatically because it is developed for ASP's. No longer will you have to keep installing new versions and supporting the installations, because it is run over the Web.
Well, which Productivity Suite has the largest marketshare today? If you were going to develop and market a competing product, the main competitor would be the one with the largest market share.
Certainly Applix, Wordperfect Office, Koffice and others are competitors, but none of them have near enough marketshare to contend for the position as the main competitor.
Competitors to Microsoft have to be there -first-. At the same time isn't good enough, and can even be fatal.
Netscape was there first and that didn't prevent Microsoft from preventing them from competing in the market.
If nobody -sees- the new Star Office, how can they buy it?
Thankfully, the web version doesn't require the OEM and other channels that bundled applications required to be successful. Marketing a web version of an Application Suite is no more difficult then marketing Amazon.com or eBay.
Of course, that won't prevent the MS press from loudly proclaiming that Sun has a shoddy product and everyone should use Microsoft's web-based products.
So is StarOffice. But the web versions of either product have not been released yet.
And don't forget, if it wasn't for Sun, there would be no web version of MS Office. Now that's what real competition does for consumers.
Microsoft does nothing on their own. Whatever they do, it's because someone else tries to do it better. The problem is that they prevent the competition from competing and then go back to doing nothing again.
If Compaq or Dell decided not to bundle Netscape, that was because that was their ultimate decision.
Don't skirt the issue. If you believe that it was really their ultimate decision then lets see some documentation. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Without facts, you don't have a real claim to stand on.
I've tried to make it easy for you. Look, I'm willing to agree with you if you can back up what you claim.
But I think it's going to be hard, which is why you don't do it. You see, the FoF states a very different story. The OEM's testified under oath, that it was *not* their ultimate decision to not preload Netscape.
And that's only one example of the illegal practices that Microsoft used. The FoF was full of example after example of these practices.
The offenses, such as they are, are pretty widely spaced, as are their consequences to consumers/public/etc.
Actually, the cases bear many similarities. The "defendents" of both cases attempted to twist the case into being about an issue it totally was not about.
In Clinton's case, he was indicted over issues of perjury, obstruction of justice, and whatnot. Yet the press turned the issue into one over a simple dalliance, which it wasn't and never was. Microsoft is being tried for anti-competitive practices, which are illegal. Yet they (and the MS press) have tried to turn the issue into one of Microsoft's freedom to innovate. Which it isn't about. Nothing in this case has anything to do with whether MS can develop IE, or media streaming technologies, or productivity apps. It just has to do with how they treat their customers who may choose *not* to use their products.
Both cases had something else in common. Public opinion was strongly on the defendants side. The public tended to strongly agree with the defendants portrayel of the "issue" in the case.
Yet, the outcomes are quite a bit different. In the Clinton scandal the "jury" let Clinton off. But in the Microsoft trial the judge has found against Microsoft in the FoF. What is the difference? Jury, especially in highly visible cases decide based on emotion, ie public opinion. Judges on the other hand decide based on facts and laws. I can practically guarentee that if this had been a jury trial they would have found for Microsoft and we would have never learned what the real facts were. And if the impeachment trial would have been held by a real court, that wasn't swayed by public opinion, they outcome would have been different too.
Everybody who bought Microsoft products (from OEMs and partners to end users) did so by their own choice. If no one wanted microsoft products, no one is forced to buy them.
Let's see some facts then. Instead of just posting a bunch of sentences, let's see you back them up. Since you probably think that the Findings of Fact are just myth anyways, written by a judge who has no knowledge of the computer market, I'll make it easier for you.
All I want you to do is to get me (preferably signed) documentation from Compaq and Gateway, stating that it was solely their decision to not preload the Netscape browser and that all decisions to not proload competing products occured by voluntary consent between both parties.
I'll even make it easier for you. You can have those documents faxed to me at 209-821-5008. When I see those documents, *then* I'll believe that everyone who sold/preloaded/used Microsoft products did so by their own choice.
If the DOJ is prosecuting, then Microsoft ought to be entitled to exhaust all possible legal remedies - including a long drawn-out appeals process. That's how it works for private citizens.
This case is going to end up at the Supreme Court anyways, there's no one who doubts that. So any of the decisions made in court before the Supreme Court is just irrelevant. Since the only decision that counts is the Supreme Courts', you may as well go straight there and prevent Microsoft from not only continuing to waste millions and millions of taxpayers dollars, but also prevent them from continuing to engage in anti-competitive practices for many years in the future.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I think everyone would agree that it is best for all the parties concerned if the case is brought to a final resolution quickly.
I think that Microsoft would be interested in dragging out the case as long as possible. Why? The longer a case drags out, the more money it costs. If a case is drug out long enough, someone is going to run out of money and will be forced to drop the case. And Microsoft certainly isn't going to run out of money first.
That's why it's imperitive for this case to be resolved as quickly as possible. I have a feeling that Microsoft knows they are dead guilty, and must find absolutely any way of getting out of the case. Relying on public opinion to sway the case didn't help them, so now I believe they will use time.
In an extremely short time I predict that we'll see the mighty PR machines spewing out garbage about how the case should be dropped because it is costing taxpayers "too much money".
What damage has MS done to the browser market? Compare Netscape 4.7 to IE5. Which has better features? Which is more stable? Which is faster?
Read the FOF if you must know. Microsoft threatened to cut off licensing to OEM's who preloaded NN. They paid OEM's to break their contracts with Netscape. They threatened IAP's who distributed NN. They paid IAP's significantly to not distribute Netscape, and only promote IE.
Basically, they bought, bribed, and buried all Netscape's distribution channels. Without OEM's and IAP's licensing Netscape's browser, Netscape didn't have the cash to continue to innovate. That's why 4.7 is a lot worse then IE 5. Remember 4.x is basically 2-3 year old technology now. That's like comparing a '97 model Chevy to a 2000 model Ford. And again, why wasn't Netscape able to keep innovating? Because Microsoft cut off their ability to compete, and stifled their freedom of innovation.
Consider it another way. Before the internet became a big shopping mall, publishers had to sell their books through stores. Imagine if you were publishing books on computers and I was. But books on computers were your only topic and you were well known for them. I decide to get into the computer field too, but although I'm a big publisher in other fields I'm not a big publisher in the computer field. So bookstores won't carry my books, because yours are much more popular.
What do I do? First, I sell my books at cost. (IE = $0) That helps, but its not enough. So then I go to all the big chains and say, "Look, if you carry my computers books I'll pay you $10 million dollars to market the books." There's a catch though. They can't sell your books. That helps, $10 million dollars is a lot of money and they can't afford to let competing bookstores out spend them.
But some of the largest bookstores are still holding out and selling your books. Your books are hot sellers after all, and they can afford to budget another $10 million to compete with the other bookstores. So it's time to pull out the lethal weapon. No one buys any of my books unless they also exclusively sell my computer books. The last of the large bookstores find that they have to give in because without my other books, your books just aren't enough to continue making a profit. So they give into my demands.
What's more, people aren't buying your books anyways, because only really small shops are able to carry them anymore. So it's more important to sell my other books which people would go to other stores to buy, then sell yours, which aren't sold buy big book sellers.
Your sales dwindle from millions to a mere few hundred thousand. What's more, you no longer are able to pay writers and spend money on good publishing, so your books slide to a mere shadow of what they were.
However, any intelligent consumer can see that I didn't do any damage to you at all. After all, just compare the books in question.
Right?
Hopefully, in this imaginary scenario, you've been able to discern what was Netscape, and IE, and Windows. It shouldn't be too hard now.
I am sorry. When did JudgeJ's FOF become the only thing in the universe that is not "rumors and opinions". Fact is, he listened to opinions during the trial. If you are going to quote gospel, you better find something better than one judge's FOF.
It's not called Findings of _Fact_, just for a whim. It is a legal documents stating the *facts* in the case. If you think you have a document that is more "factual" then the FOF, then please do tell me about. I'm willing to concede the issue if that is the case. However, I have yet to see anyone come forth with one. And until they do, the facts that Judge Jackson has stated are legally binding.
But with linux resurected and innovation safely out of Microsoft's grasp, I got what I wanted from the trial. And now, that it is at this stage, I wish it would stop. So I'd recomend not punishing Microsoft.
Okay, maybe the trial did pin Microsoft down enough to allow Linux to be popular. And maybe it did prevent Microsoft from stifling the freedom of innovation, for a time. But how do we know that after the trial that Microsoft won't go back to stifling other companies freedom of innovation?
That's why Microsoft needs to be punished, in part, simply to guarantee that other companies will continue to have even a greater freedom of innovation, then they do now.
Microsoft was on its way to doing massive damage to itself. It wasn't going to go away completely, but damned if it wasn't going to suffer like every other company that forgets its origins.
You are absolutely right. Most companies do go through a very successful time and then slowely whither to a mere speciman. Microsoft will be pushed aside too as the computer market drastically changes.
But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has done illegal activities in the past and *must* be punished for them. Future conclusions have no relevance to past actions.
And of course each Linux distro would have to stop shipping Netscape. Be would have to stop shipping their browser too.
Actually, Microsoft would have to stop forcing OEM's to bundle IE. OEM's could still choose to bundle IE if they desired to. But Microsoft couldn't penalize OEM's if they chose not to bundle IE, like Microsoft has in the past.
Likewise, Linux distributions can choose to distribute a browser. Netscape does nothing to them if they choose not to distribute Netscape's browser, and has done nothing in the past.
And again, if distributor's choose to bundle Netscape or another browser with BeOS, then that is their choice. BeOS can ship their browser if they want and the OEM's can replace it with another one.
Microsoft can ship a browser if they want to. But if they prevent OEM's and consumers from installing their own and replacing IE, then that goes beyond normal competitive practices. Other vendors don't do that. Other vendors won't be affected by a decision about browser bundling because they haven't done anything wrong. Only Microsoft has.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good thing for Microsoft to do. Creating partnerships is a good way to benefit from the markets that the other company has.
Hopefully Radio Shack did this out of their own will and *not* because Microsoft told them that if they didn't Radio Shack would be out of business in 3 years. Microsoft wouldn't violate anti-trust laws just after the Judge released the FoF documenting their transgressions in they past, would they?
Nah...
-Brent--
This is a good thing for Microsoft to do. Creating partnerships is a good way to benefit from the markets that the other company has.
Hopefully Radio Shack did this out of their own will and because Microsoft told them that if they didn't Radio Shack would be out of business in 3 years. Microsoft wouldn't violate anti-trust laws just after the Judge released the FoF documenting their transgressions in they past, would they?
Nah...
-Brent--
Contrary, Judge Jackson did feel that Java was a competitor to Microsoft Windows platform. That's why Microsoft went to such great lengths to subvert it.
Sun, the manufacturer of StarOffice, has by no means been "prevented from competing", nor is there any realistic means by which MS could accomplish such a feat.Well, yes, Microsoft hasn't prevented Sun from competing by developing a StarOffice portal, that's agreed. And would seem unlikely that Microsoft would be able to prevent Sun from competing with the StarOffice portal in the future, seeing the nature of the distribution channels. Although, I'll admit, not impossible.
Now, if you are saying that Microsoft hasn't prevented Sun from competing in the market with their Java, I'll let you go read the FoF to find out in what ways Microsoft did that.
Only if consumers prefer MS Office to Star Office will SO go by the wayside.Only if Microsoft would close of all distribution channels to StarOffice would StarOffice not be able to compete. It has nothing to do with choice or quality. And if Microsoft can be kept from blocking Sun from the distribution channels that are necessary for consumers to get the StarOffice product, I think we'll see more of the 40/60 market share that you'd expect in a market with strong competition.
Why "innovate" when what you have already works and has survived the challenge of a competing system?Because, uh, Microsoft claims to have a "freedom to innovate". Violating the anti-trust laws *isn't* innovating. And as you so clearly point out, it even destroys the incentive to innovate. So if Microsoft really was interested in innovating, they would have allowed and encouraged other companies to compete with them.
Not having competition, and therefore no innovation hurts consumers and causes advancements in fields to happen in an untimely manner, if not ever.
-Brent--
If you go back to my original post, you'd notice that I pointed this out as a example of the rewards of real competition. Sun here has the same position as AMD. Would we have had cheap "Celeron" chips from Intel if it hadn't been for AMD? I would say most likely not.
but I don't feel you can accuse them of anything illegitimate here. Why attribute it to malice when it's explained by simple stupidity?My point wasn't to accuse Microsoft of anything at all here. My purpose was to point out that without the innovation that Sun pursued in, we'd have never, or at least not for much longer, seen Microsoft use their "freedom to innovate". And there's nothing wrong with innovating. I believe that Microsoft should and does innovate. I just don't believe it comes very often without competition threatening to innovate first.
Not that I am suggesting such a remedy is unnecessary for other aspects of MS's business.You inspired faith in me again. :) No one at all, not the DoJ, the judge, or competitors is claiming that Microsoft doesn't have a freedom to innovate. The case was about Microsoft preventing others from competing, which is illegal in America and has nothing to do with your ability to innovate. Indeed, as I tried to point out, the lack of competition often breeds a lack of innovation.
If Microsoft really wants to innovate, the best thing they could do would be to allow and even help competitors compete strongly with them. Then we'd really see some innovation.
As I mentioned previously, it is a symptom of a healthy market that Netscape's existence would pressure MS into responding with a competing product.Yes, and as I mentioned above, I think that Microsoft had a right to develop IE and compete with Netscape. However, it was illegal for Microsoft to prevent Netscape from competing.
Maybe if they had competed fairly IE would have still been better then Netscape and everyone would have been using it anyways. But we'll never know and now Microsoft is guilty of anti-trust violations. And they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.
I don't want to argue that MS didn't try to supplant Netscape unfairly because they appear to have done so, but there is ample reason to feel that they also produced a better browser while they were at it.Certainly no one denies that Microsoft was able to develop a quality browser. And no one denies that the browser Microsoft released this year is better then the technology that existed 2 years ago. However, what *can't* be substantiated is whether Netscape would have failed to create a browser better then IE 5 had they been able to compete in the market.
-Brent--
How do you define "shoddy"? Often the word is simply defined as "not Microsoft.
The press is biased. No matter how hard you try, if it's not a Microsoft product, then it is not any good.
-Brent--
I am wrong, but only sort of. Actually, there are a few different markets that this will do strongly in. Intranet usage will be huge, I agree.
I just was focusing on one market segment, the one that would tend to use iPhones and set-top boxes. Not to imply that there was any other, or any bigger markets.
-Brent--
For a long time, even after Sun announced their intention to develop an applications portal, Microsoft claimed that consumers *didn't* want to run applications over the web. It wasn't until shortly after Sun's announcement that MS also announced their plans.
We wouldn't have a web-based Office 2000 from Microsoft if it hadn't been for Sun. I think Microsoft made that quite clear before their about-face, that they didn't intend on developing one.
Most of their products were developed, not becuase of Microsoft innovation, but because someone else announced that they were going to do it, or were already doing it and Microsoft wanted that market, possibly to also protect the markets they had.
Look at IEFirst, would there have even been an IE if Netscape hadn't existed. Microsoft developed IE simply because they were scared of Netscape.
Second, Netscape 1,2 and 3 were undoubtedly better then IE. It wasn't until Microsoft had closed Netscape out of the market that Netscape didn't have the funding to be able to continue to innovate. The only reason that IE is better then Netscape now is that Microsoft cut off Netscapes only way of generating the income to continue to innovate.
To say that IE is better then Netscape because Netscape wasn't as good is like me tripping you in a race and claiming that you lost because you were too clumsy.
Also, when Mozilla comes out, then we'll see which is better :)
-Brent--
Uh, what do you think would be cheaper and easier to implement, and much easier to sell to consumers. A phone capable of running Office 2000, or a phone capable of displaying Office 2000 running on a server across the web.
What about a set top box like WebTV. Is it more logical to be able to run Office 2000 locally, or over the web? I have the feeling that most consumers don't care where it's running as long as it is there.
Especially - why would you want to pay good money for the privilege?You have to consider the market that these vendors are focusing on. Definately low-tech consumers, who just want a low-cost way to get on the web, send email, and do word processing. That don't want to deal with installing software and keeping it up to date. A $99 box with a $20 monthly fee is exactly what will interest them.
-Brent--
Yes, it will reduce your TCO dramatically because it is developed for ASP's. No longer will you have to keep installing new versions and supporting the installations, because it is run over the Web.
-Brent--
Well, which Productivity Suite has the largest marketshare today? If you were going to develop and market a competing product, the main competitor would be the one with the largest market share.
Certainly Applix, Wordperfect Office, Koffice and others are competitors, but none of them have near enough marketshare to contend for the position as the main competitor.
-Brent--
Yes, the posters here on /. are very mixed up.
Both Office 2000 and StarOffice are out.Both the desktop versions of Office 2000 and StarOffice are available today. But the web-based versions are still in development.
It is the web-based versions that the article was reporting on. I would be grateful if everyone kept that in mind as they posted responses.
-Brent--
Netscape was there first and that didn't prevent Microsoft from preventing them from competing in the market.
If nobody -sees- the new Star Office, how can they buy it?Thankfully, the web version doesn't require the OEM and other channels that bundled applications required to be successful. Marketing a web version of an Application Suite is no more difficult then marketing Amazon.com or eBay.
Of course, that won't prevent the MS press from loudly proclaiming that Sun has a shoddy product and everyone should use Microsoft's web-based products.
-Brent--
So is StarOffice. But the web versions of either product have not been released yet.
And don't forget, if it wasn't for Sun, there would be no web version of MS Office. Now that's what real competition does for consumers.
Microsoft does nothing on their own. Whatever they do, it's because someone else tries to do it better. The problem is that they prevent the competition from competing and then go back to doing nothing again.
-Brent--
Will Red Hat start using anti-competitive and illegal practices to force people to sell/bundle/preload/use their products?
Probably not.
-Brent--
Don't skirt the issue. If you believe that it was really their ultimate decision then lets see some documentation. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Without facts, you don't have a real claim to stand on.
I've tried to make it easy for you. Look, I'm willing to agree with you if you can back up what you claim.
But I think it's going to be hard, which is why you don't do it. You see, the FoF states a very different story. The OEM's testified under oath, that it was *not* their ultimate decision to not preload Netscape.
And that's only one example of the illegal practices that Microsoft used. The FoF was full of example after example of these practices.
-Brent--
Actually, the cases bear many similarities. The "defendents" of both cases attempted to twist the case into being about an issue it totally was not about.
In Clinton's case, he was indicted over issues of perjury, obstruction of justice, and whatnot. Yet the press turned the issue into one over a simple dalliance, which it wasn't and never was. Microsoft is being tried for anti-competitive practices, which are illegal. Yet they (and the MS press) have tried to turn the issue into one of Microsoft's freedom to innovate. Which it isn't about. Nothing in this case has anything to do with whether MS can develop IE, or media streaming technologies, or productivity apps. It just has to do with how they treat their customers who may choose *not* to use their products.
Both cases had something else in common. Public opinion was strongly on the defendants side. The public tended to strongly agree with the defendants portrayel of the "issue" in the case.
Yet, the outcomes are quite a bit different. In the Clinton scandal the "jury" let Clinton off. But in the Microsoft trial the judge has found against Microsoft in the FoF. What is the difference? Jury, especially in highly visible cases decide based on emotion, ie public opinion. Judges on the other hand decide based on facts and laws. I can practically guarentee that if this had been a jury trial they would have found for Microsoft and we would have never learned what the real facts were. And if the impeachment trial would have been held by a real court, that wasn't swayed by public opinion, they outcome would have been different too.
-Brent--
Let's see some facts then. Instead of just posting a bunch of sentences, let's see you back them up. Since you probably think that the Findings of Fact are just myth anyways, written by a judge who has no knowledge of the computer market, I'll make it easier for you.
All I want you to do is to get me (preferably signed) documentation from Compaq and Gateway, stating that it was solely their decision to not preload the Netscape browser and that all decisions to not proload competing products occured by voluntary consent between both parties.
I'll even make it easier for you. You can have those documents faxed to me at 209-821-5008. When I see those documents, *then* I'll believe that everyone who sold/preloaded/used Microsoft products did so by their own choice.
-Brent--
This case is going to end up at the Supreme Court anyways, there's no one who doubts that. So any of the decisions made in court before the Supreme Court is just irrelevant. Since the only decision that counts is the Supreme Courts', you may as well go straight there and prevent Microsoft from not only continuing to waste millions and millions of taxpayers dollars, but also prevent them from continuing to engage in anti-competitive practices for many years in the future.
-Brent--
I think that Microsoft would be interested in dragging out the case as long as possible. Why? The longer a case drags out, the more money it costs. If a case is drug out long enough, someone is going to run out of money and will be forced to drop the case. And Microsoft certainly isn't going to run out of money first.
That's why it's imperitive for this case to be resolved as quickly as possible. I have a feeling that Microsoft knows they are dead guilty, and must find absolutely any way of getting out of the case. Relying on public opinion to sway the case didn't help them, so now I believe they will use time.
In an extremely short time I predict that we'll see the mighty PR machines spewing out garbage about how the case should be dropped because it is costing taxpayers "too much money".
-Brent--
Read the FOF if you must know. Microsoft threatened to cut off licensing to OEM's who preloaded NN. They paid OEM's to break their contracts with Netscape. They threatened IAP's who distributed NN. They paid IAP's significantly to not distribute Netscape, and only promote IE.
Basically, they bought, bribed, and buried all Netscape's distribution channels. Without OEM's and IAP's licensing Netscape's browser, Netscape didn't have the cash to continue to innovate. That's why 4.7 is a lot worse then IE 5. Remember 4.x is basically 2-3 year old technology now. That's like comparing a '97 model Chevy to a 2000 model Ford. And again, why wasn't Netscape able to keep innovating? Because Microsoft cut off their ability to compete, and stifled their freedom of innovation.
Consider it another way. Before the internet became a big shopping mall, publishers had to sell their books through stores. Imagine if you were publishing books on computers and I was. But books on computers were your only topic and you were well known for them. I decide to get into the computer field too, but although I'm a big publisher in other fields I'm not a big publisher in the computer field. So bookstores won't carry my books, because yours are much more popular.
What do I do? First, I sell my books at cost. (IE = $0) That helps, but its not enough. So then I go to all the big chains and say, "Look, if you carry my computers books I'll pay you $10 million dollars to market the books." There's a catch though. They can't sell your books. That helps, $10 million dollars is a lot of money and they can't afford to let competing bookstores out spend them.
But some of the largest bookstores are still holding out and selling your books. Your books are hot sellers after all, and they can afford to budget another $10 million to compete with the other bookstores. So it's time to pull out the lethal weapon. No one buys any of my books unless they also exclusively sell my computer books. The last of the large bookstores find that they have to give in because without my other books, your books just aren't enough to continue making a profit. So they give into my demands.
What's more, people aren't buying your books anyways, because only really small shops are able to carry them anymore. So it's more important to sell my other books which people would go to other stores to buy, then sell yours, which aren't sold buy big book sellers.
Your sales dwindle from millions to a mere few hundred thousand. What's more, you no longer are able to pay writers and spend money on good publishing, so your books slide to a mere shadow of what they were.
However, any intelligent consumer can see that I didn't do any damage to you at all. After all, just compare the books in question.
Right?
Hopefully, in this imaginary scenario, you've been able to discern what was Netscape, and IE, and Windows. It shouldn't be too hard now.
-Brent--
What's wrong with removable toolbars? :)
-Brent--
It's not called Findings of _Fact_, just for a whim. It is a legal documents stating the *facts* in the case. If you think you have a document that is more "factual" then the FOF, then please do tell me about. I'm willing to concede the issue if that is the case. However, I have yet to see anyone come forth with one. And until they do, the facts that Judge Jackson has stated are legally binding.
-Brent--
Okay, maybe the trial did pin Microsoft down enough to allow Linux to be popular. And maybe it did prevent Microsoft from stifling the freedom of innovation, for a time. But how do we know that after the trial that Microsoft won't go back to stifling other companies freedom of innovation?
That's why Microsoft needs to be punished, in part, simply to guarantee that other companies will continue to have even a greater freedom of innovation, then they do now.
-Brent--
You are absolutely right. Most companies do go through a very successful time and then slowely whither to a mere speciman. Microsoft will be pushed aside too as the computer market drastically changes.
But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has done illegal activities in the past and *must* be punished for them. Future conclusions have no relevance to past actions.
-Brent--
Actually, Microsoft would have to stop forcing OEM's to bundle IE. OEM's could still choose to bundle IE if they desired to. But Microsoft couldn't penalize OEM's if they chose not to bundle IE, like Microsoft has in the past.
Likewise, Linux distributions can choose to distribute a browser. Netscape does nothing to them if they choose not to distribute Netscape's browser, and has done nothing in the past.
And again, if distributor's choose to bundle Netscape or another browser with BeOS, then that is their choice. BeOS can ship their browser if they want and the OEM's can replace it with another one.
Microsoft can ship a browser if they want to. But if they prevent OEM's and consumers from installing their own and replacing IE, then that goes beyond normal competitive practices. Other vendors don't do that. Other vendors won't be affected by a decision about browser bundling because they haven't done anything wrong. Only Microsoft has.
-Brent--