|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
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
|
Contact Us
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
16:20 EST/21:20 GMT | News Source:
CNET |
Posted By: Julien Jay |
Netscape Communications, a division of AOL Time Warner, filed suit against Microsoft on Tuesday, claiming that the software giant's business practices have harmed it. The lawsuit is based on court findings that Microsoft's business practices amid the infamous browser wars of the 1990s violated two sections of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. In April 2000 a federal judge ruled that Microsoft used anticompetitive means to thwart browser Netscape. In June 2001, a panel of seven appellate judges upheld eight separate antitrust violations by Microsoft. AOL acquired Netscape in 1999. The media titan is asking for a jury trial and is seeking damages but did not specify an amount in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. AOL Time Warner also asked for an injunction against Microsoft's alleged antitrust violations, both current and future. The judge in the case ultimately would decide the nature of the injunctive relief, which AOL Time Warner suggested could be derived from a remedy proposal filed last year by nine states and the District of Columbia. One option: forcing Microsoft to release a version of Windows without its own middleware products, such as a Web browser, media player or instant messenger.
|
|
#26 By
3339 (206.216.3.134)
at
1/23/2002 5:15:36 PM
|
mctwin2kman, all I would expect is that those functions which are distinct to IE be in their own DLL, functions disctint to the system are not in the html DLLs, shared functions can be in the shared DLLs, these DLLs can come with the machine and when IE is uninstalled the files ONLY associated with IE are removed at the same time. The consumer can have a choice if IE is installed or not (at installation) and can be removed easily otherwise.
If they had done this in the first place, they probably wouldn't have this legal trouble.
BY the way, their exclusive contracts with OEMs is as you recognize illegal, but it isn't the only problem that needs to be addressed.
Your car metaphor is ridiculous (why do softies use car metaphors? Is it because of repressed jealousy for Steve Job's BMW metaphor or something?) Why? Because you don't have a monopoly in there, do you?
What if GM was the only car manufacturer in the world, and they didn't have airbags. If someone invented airbags and people started having their mechanics install them in the millions, would it be legal for GM to 2 years later preinstall their own and wipe out a 5 billion dollar company in under 2 years?
|
#27 By
3339 (206.216.3.134)
at
1/23/2002 5:42:30 PM
|
stu, your pointing out OEM and ISPs is correct. And, yes, MS offered additional benefits, but again, these contracts constituted ADDITIONAL things that Microsoft did illegally. At the time, a lot of ISPs wanted to offer BOTH browsers, but if they did sign a contract with MS they were restricted from including Netscape as an addition. MS also undercut the market--Netscape was trying to make money, MS was trying to put Netscape ou of business.
The tying issue was a factor and was determined to be illegal. An antitrust case doesn't have one smoking gun, and frequently the loss to consumers and competitors is difficult to guage as they will suffer other problems as a result of the predation.
This doesn't negate the fact that MS leveraged its monopoly OS, created exclusive contracts up and down the entire food chain (OEMs, ISVs, ISPs, advertisers, etc...), broke contracts (w/ Sun), bullied Apple, and tied IE to Windows.
Your statement alone, that Netscape gave up after 98 was entrenched, is obvious enough support. How many 5 billion dollar companies do you know of that just "GIVE UP" what they are doing?
|
#28 By
4209 (163.192.21.3)
at
1/23/2002 6:24:26 PM
|
SodaJerk, Ok the car thing sucked. But why does IE need to be cleanly uninstalled. Why even need to be removed. You can still as a consumer install Netscape and have it work fine. I have done it many times. Microsoft never held a gun to the consumers head and said don't do this. As far as MS including it, why can't they, it is there product, there OS. If Netscae or any other company wants to produce and distribute an OS, so beit, they can put whatever they want in there, that they own or create or license. MS is a company and often here in the US companies do all they can to survive. Is MS supposed to lie down and say ok, you do what you want with the software we create and own, hell no.
As far as your GM analogy goes, only if the airbags are not patented and the idea is not owned by someone else. Otherwise if the company was stupid enough to not patent it and let others copy it, then yes they deserve to go out of business for there own stupidity. That is what Patent law is for. And many car companies offered Airbags as standard equipment when they first came out. Chrysler was the first, then others followed, but Chrysler was not ever hounded by the Government because they innovated. So why is MS, they try to create a better product and if they succeed then great, that does not mean every other software vendor gets to sue them because they can't create a better product and sell it. Last I checked most of the people complaining about MS were other companies, now last I thought the Monopoly laws stated that a consumer had to be hurt. The only way a consumer was hurt here was because Netscape could not keep up or use a good business strategy to compete. It is not MS's fault that Netscape could compete, MS just caused a roadblock for them. Now I know MS is not innocent, but there are few companies if any that are.
|
#29 By
3339 (206.216.3.134)
at
1/23/2002 6:48:41 PM
|
mctwin2kman,
Clean uninstall because if you choose another option, it is confusing to have to reset your email client, your editor choice, etc.. verytime you download an MS product. A clean uninstall because if I choos not to use the product it shouldn't take up HD space, system resources, window menu real estate, or have advertising throughout my computer. I never said they can't include it, but why not provide the option not to have it? And don;t give me that crap about they could do whatever they want with their own product--I'm sick and tired of explaining that monopolies are not allowed to do whatever the hell they want to with their products.
Ooooh... nevermind... you're obviously not to bright to try to extend my analogy to patent rights... Did you think I wanted you to take it there, or that you're smart for doing so, or that you exposed my analogy? I guess you don't understand that an analogy is a general statement, and not an exploration of what US auto manufacturer had airbags first. Analogies are hypothetical and ideal scenarios to compare complex, realistic situations to in order to illustrate a point. By the way, it was either BMW or Mercedes (I confuse the two) that was first.
Our Antitrust laws are directed towards protecting consumers, but they do not require consumers be hurt. What they require is anti-competitive activity; competition is deemed to be pro-consumer by the government and economy which have been the cornerstones of America.
|
#30 By
3339 (206.216.3.134)
at
1/23/2002 7:51:10 PM
|
#70, I don't think we're too far apart here. I am saying the critical phase was between 96-97... MS was already engaged in several practices (later to be deemed anti-competitive) but, yes, Netscape, was still king. MS's penetration, which was still small at this time, was indicative that their technology wasn't up to snuff but their business and marketing practices were like a 10 ton weight on Netscape. I would say by the end of 98 MS had already accomplished its mission; at the time, it was hard to see because you could remain optimistic and hopeful that Netscape could top them again (I, personally, didn't considering the IE vs. NS html "features" war that then turned into standards support war (in my opinion, largely due to Apple signing on with IE, but that's a digression and others would disagree anyway...) combined with Netscape's decline in enterprise and ISP use combined with the decline of the server products. But I think you are overidealizing what NS6 could have been. Suppose it had the older look with a ton of modern features, great standards support, a ton of speed, and stability; do you think it would have been able to re-win the war? They may have regained lost users to some extent, maybe a large extent, but they wouldn't have gained IE/Win users.
|
|
|
|
|