ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Netscape might have case based upon Microsoft antitrust facts

Time: 10:42 EST/15:42 GMT | News Source: Seattle Times | Posted By: Byron Hinson

Applying an appeals court's findings from the government's antitrust victory over Microsoft to Netscape Communications' lawsuit against the software giant would make it easier for the AOL Time Warner unit to seek damages, a judge said. "You are not going to have a hard case to prove" if Microsoft is barred from contesting the federal appeals court's findings, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz told a lawyer for Netscape yesterday.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 322
Last | Next

The time now is 4:18:34 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 9549 (63.88.169.2) at 10/25/2002 12:58:32 PM

Netscape dug their own grave when the Browsers came out. Netscape wanted to start charging for accessing the internet with a browser and MS gave it away for free with and without the OS integration. People wanted free and it caught on then Netscape tried to play catchup and by that time MS had saturated the market with their free Browser. It still all came down to money on the consumer end. $$$$ Nobody was forced to use IE but the consumers chose to for the $$

This post was edited by cto on Friday, October 25, 2002 at 13:00.

#2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 1:11:33 PM

If you were already found guilty of having your finger up your nose, and the judge leaned towards allowing that evidence entered, it would be pretty easy to prove you had your finger up your nose, Jeff.

#3 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/25/2002 1:36:06 PM

Oh no, sodajerk is going to tell us that bundling by improving a product is illegal again.

#4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 2:18:44 PM

I've never said that, soda.

#5 By 10748 (169.3.170.206) at 10/25/2002 2:30:31 PM

I used Netscape for years and never paid a dime, just upgraded to the next version. Point is ... while I used Netscape for years and only changed to IE when it got better. As far as I'm concerned they were both always free. Actually Netscape's business plan was flawed, it could not have continued in a world with any other good browser in a market or the growth of the Internet would have stagnated.

The slack mouthed, drooling general public would not have gone online when the Internet went commercial with all of these costs ... computer ... ISP account ... and $40 bucks just to read the WWW?

If things had gone differently and Netscape had actually made a better AP the Open Source community would now be attacking Netscape and working on the "Navigator Killer".

#6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 2:33:33 PM

zooker, No, it's illegal when you have a monopoly and have no procompetive, proconsumer rationale for introducing features which can harm the distribution of other products... but soda doesn't want to hear this again...

Nor do I overlook that there's a different standard. The different standards are for the judge to determine, but FACTS are FACTS which are immutable to the courts. Whether or not those facts actually meet the standard is for the lawyers and judge to argue, but that's not a reason to say these are no longer facts, and need to be reargued.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 25, 2002 at 14:44.

#7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 4:29:50 PM

zooker, you're regressing intellectually by the second. Findings of Fact are just that, and are a record of the facts. Any standards of proof of guilt are subjective and entirely up in the air even if the Findings are submitted (which I predict they will be); there is no such thing as a standard of proof of facts--facts are, by definition, proven. The argument is wholly about admitting facts, they haven't gotten to a point in the case where either side attempts to "prove" anything yet.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 25, 2002 at 16:31.

#8 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/25/2002 7:27:07 PM

For the last DAMN time:

Internet Explorer achieved nearly 40% market share by VERSION 3.0. Version 3.0 was not integrated with ANYTHING, and was not bundled with Windows until after it already had 35% market share.

Since 33% market share is considered "critical mass" for a browser, it is clear that Microsoft achieved this success not because of a monopoly, but because their product was BETTER.

Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly in many ways, but ironically, the browser war was not a case where they needed to.

Netscape failed because their browser became stagnent since they thought they could rest with a 90% market share. That's a mistake Microsoft will never make.

#9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 7:38:22 PM

For the last DAMN time:

They've lost the case, RMD! Get over it! You are the one who is holding onto a pipedream, don't you see that? They may or may not lose this one, but the odds are that the Findings of Fact will be entered into evidence.

And you've got it backwards--just because they didn't need to, that doesn't make it not illegal... (Maybe so in a civil case though). If anything, it makes it all the more illegal.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 25, 2002 at 19:38.

#10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 7:40:45 PM

Jag, come on, I thought you were more clever than that! What sort of assinine math analogy are you trying to make... Dumbass = 0 and intelligence cannot be < 0 therefore my formula doesn't work?!! Please, talking about being a geek@ss loser!

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 25, 2002 at 19:41.

#11 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/25/2002 8:17:36 PM

#13 - Ah... ok, so because somebody loses a court case, everybody who disagrees with the decision should now agree that it was the correct choice?

What the hell is wrong with you? I don't stop arguing because of near consensus against me, nor do I stop when a court finds in opposition to what I think.

My arguments are sound. They are not invalidated because of what a judge says. The only thing that can oppose my arguments are counter arguments. So if you want, present those, but don't tell me to "get over it".

"And you've got it backwards--just because they didn't need to, that doesn't make it not illegal"

Sigh... if the actions of a company that's being accused of using monopoly power to destroy competition didn't actually do anything that resulted in the demise of the competition, then THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. Being a monopoly is NOT ILLEGAL. Microsoft's bundling of IE into Windows has LITTLE OR NO AFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE BROWSER WAR.

That was a FACT in your wonderful "findings of fact", and since that is what the case was originally all about, I will argue all I damn well please.

#12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/25/2002 8:24:42 PM

And you will continue to sound like a moron because your arguments are not based in law. MS committed anticompetitive actions... This is illegal if you possess a monopoly. I have never said nor has any court ever said being a monopoly is illegal. It was the actions. No one ever said these actions had to put companies out of business and these actions alone--they simply had to be illegal, anticompetitive acts, and they were. They have been found guilty of this. Unlike you I'm not living in the past so I feel no reason to provide the reasons that you are fully well-aware I have provided numerous times.

I'm not asking you to stop acting like an idiot, but you were making a declaration as if you could set everyone straight and end the matter as if people were all of a sudden bringing up new and different arguments--all of the arguments have been offered before, and your's lost.

Loser!

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 25, 2002 at 20:31.

#13 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/25/2002 10:04:52 PM

"Unlike you I'm not living in the past so I feel no reason to provide the reasons that you are fully well-aware I have provided numerous times."

Ah yes... we shouldn't lament about past wrongs for fear we may avoid them in the future.

Give me a break.

"And you will continue to sound like a moron because your arguments are not based in law"

Actually, my arguments are based on law. See, the judge's job was to determine how to apply existing laws to a new circumstance. I believe he did it incorrectly. While I also contest the validity of the law itself, my primary argument is that the application of that law is flawed.

"all of the arguments have been offered before, and your's lost."

Really? That news to me.

"Loser!"

Seems to me that most reading this would view you as the idiot, since the first sign of a weak argument is resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Just because I disagree with you does not make me less intelligent. Your assumption that people who disagree with you are "morons" or "idiots" seems to reveal an underlying insecurity - either a personal one, or, more likely, just one with your beliefs.

#14 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 10/26/2002 4:35:16 PM

One thing that will stink about this case is in order for them to sue MS for damages they are going to have to prove what those damages were.

Now, since AOL paid a pretty penny its going to be awful funny to have Netscape come up with some astronomical number and then try and say "If their browser wasn't around we would be trillionares". That of course is something you could not prove nor could I even begin to believe... hell Opera would have owned them if MS hadn't.

Second... the Browser business was almost the smallest part of their annual revenue. Their webservers are where they made all of them money. So the case cannot be argued that MS caused them to go bankrupt or had a major part if devaluing their company.

So I don't think this will make it that far. They got all sorts of money from AOL when they were bought out and they will have to show that MS caused monetary damages to Netscape when this all happened. The argument that they could still be selling Netscape Navigator for $30 still is outrageous and I can't wait until they start throwing that out again.

#15 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 10:18:00 PM