| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
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 |
 |
Industry says ho-hum to Netscape lawsuit | |
|
||
| Time: 00:21 EST/05:21 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
High-tech industry lobbyists issued a collective yawn after Netscape Communications filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Microsoft claiming the software giant's business practices crushed the upstart's browser. Apple Computer, Compaq Computer, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Oracle each declined to comment on the lawsuit, in which Netscape asks for a jury trial and unspecified damages. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks triple damages based on the Clayton Act and the District of Columbia Code, as well as interest and attorneys fees. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:02:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 10 (24.17.9.97) at 1/23/2002 2:06:04 AM |
| grrrr...those freak'n cry babies....i'm so sick of aoltw, sun, oracle and all the other cry babies in the industry....they're such sore losers |
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 1/23/2002 3:04:36 AM |
|
Actually, I would say that Netscape was the one controlling the pawns, not the other way around.
The pawn is the Federal government. This post was edited by RMD on Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 03:04. |
| #3 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 1/23/2002 11:04:43 AM |
| So then why doesn't AOL put Netscape in there application and increase its market share? Why does AOL still use IE in there Application? If MS is so bad why do they include AOL in there OS, except XP? I mean an MS lawyer can sit there and say to AOL in court. Why do you use my clients browser, if you have your own? Just because MS makes things better than other developers does not mean they need to be sued everytime someone can't compete or make a better product. What the heck happened to this world, where now if you can't make something better, you sue someone who can. |
| #4 By 2960 (156.80.64.157) at 1/23/2002 2:20:14 PM |
|
There has to be something to the timing of this. Anyone figured out the 'angle' yet?
Netscape was dead as soon as AOL bought it. Hell, they don't even use it in their own product! I'm not saying they do or don't have a case. That's for da judge to figure out. I am, however, confused by the timing of this. TL |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/23/2002 4:14:19 PM |
|
#10 - Please, if you don't know something don't just make stuff up.
Netscape 4.x was released prior to IE 4.0 by about six months. It came out in late '96, compared to IE 4.0 in spring '97. IE wasn't really integrated or bundled with the OS in any major way until IE 4.0. This was in the Win95B(OEM) release, and also Win98. NT4 did come with IE2.0, but does that really count as all it was good for was downloading netscape? By January 1998, Netscape had already given up on the browser and release it open source. This was even before the release of Win98. In fact Netscape didn't hit below 50% marketshare until well into 1998. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-216043.html?legacy=cnet |
| #6 By 3339 (206.216.3.134) at 1/23/2002 4:38:53 PM |
|
TechLarry, the angle: The Tunney Act public comment period is about to end. I surmise that K-K is leaning toward accepting the settlement so AOL has to step out and say, "This is not enough to remedy the situation."
Otherwise, it makes sense that they'd wait until after the bulk of the case has run its course and that their own arguments have been proven by the gov't. Once the Appeals Court decison (maybe even Penfields), I'm sure that they started up with the lawyers and accountants to assess the value of damages--but that's no easy task. |
| #7 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 1/23/2002 4:59:28 PM |
| SodaJerk, so you are saying that MS should have bundled someone elses browser or not bundled there own? Well, for one the first part will never happen and two if they did not bundle there own, who knows what the Internet would be today. Most people don't buy a computer and then spend another $30 so they can get on the internet. Since no noob knows how to go about getting the browser, MS made it easy. Did you want them to put a big sign up in there OS that told the new user to go look at NS. Not gonna happen, that is like GM telling its customers to go look at Ford's A/C system and see if they want that instead of GM's A/C system. MS was found a monopoly in there OS division. Since there really is no other OS out there. Furthermore this allowed them to use there OS Monopoly to tell OEM's what to include with there OS install. Because without the MS OS on there machines, what were they supposed to use? That is what was bad, and yes they told OEM's not to put NS on the boxes when they were sold. So there is the real problem, now just because they did this did not make NS fail. NS could have advertised there browser, they could have let people know they can download it for free. And as others say, most noob computer buyers would ask someone with more knowledge what to use, maybe relying on there ISP to tell them what they should use. As far as I know, most ISP's still have downloads, or links to them, of NS available on there sites. I used to use NS and I switched to IE, because the browser did not have as many bugs or issues. I used NS and recommended it up untill version 4.7, then I got fed up and switched to IE. I also told people to use IE after that. So it is not really MS's fault, as much as AOL/NS would like to think it was, that NS failed. It was there own fault and maybe they should just sue the shit out of themselves. |
| #8 By 3339 (206.216.3.134) at 1/23/2002 7:59:22 PM |
|
So is there a point to what you are saying, fuse?
If you ignore the illegal, monopoly stuff, if you ignore the funding and R&D issues because of the illegal stuff, and you do a poll of softies, I bet a lot of them are softies. |
| #9 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 1/23/2002 9:07:09 PM |
|
SodaJerk: Actually I have a good idea on why the timing is what it is.
When you dissolve a corporation you have only X years to "wrap up" the business of the corporation. I know in Oklahoma it is 3 years. After those three years NO action can be taken on behalf of the corporation and NO action can be taken against the corporation. I'm not sure where Netscape was incorporated but my guess is that AOL waited until the last minute to file this lawsuit. Personally I think this is a bad thing because netscape will not benifit from this at all. The only thing this will do is put alot of extra cash into a media giant which doesn't deserve it. Shit if I had thought of this I would have gotten a bunch of my buddies together and bought Netscape just to get the couple of Billion. This won't teach MS anything because the accumulate like 1.5 B in cash a month or so. Netscape should have nutted up and done this by themselves... this is only going to be a transfer of money between to Giant corps. |
| #10 By 3339 (206.216.3.134) at 1/23/2002 9:23:51 PM |
|
Decent theory, Hump, but I haven't seen anything about this in any press coverage, and quite a few of them are theorizing about the timing as well. And these regulations vary as well. And then there are cases like Be who actually transferred assets and personell but retained the ability to sue MS for antitrust violations. I don't quite know how this works, but that's pretty specific; I don't know what sort of entity exists to do such a thing independent of Palm or where the cash would come from, but I wouldn't expect Be to sue MS until after the Fed cases are completely wrapped up, which I think is more than 3 years away.
As to where the money goes and who's doing the suing, it seems relatively irrelevent. Netscape doesn't really exist outside of AOL, except in this case where it is just Netscape suing MS, not AOL. As to Netscape doing alone, you mean prior to the end of 98? I think that would have been a pretty bad idea sicne we had no idea where the antitrust was going at that point, and Netscape was pretty strapped for cash and had a lot of media/marketing/legal/staff/technical distractions. As to what they gain, the cash won't help, but if NS can force remedial changes (and especially if they get the injunction) .... well, I think that will have the most dramatic impact and is one of the few things that could actually help NS. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/24/2002 12:01:22 PM |
|
#19 - Apparently I have more financial experience than yourself. You went off on how Microsoft had already killed Netscape by version 3, which was fundamentally untrue. With NS 3, they still had 80% marketshare. They were still making sales, they were still thriving. It was *NOT* until after the release of Netscape 4 that the company started to have problems.
Why? Again, because the NS 4 release was really really bad. This had nothing to do with funding, they were still very well funded at that time, but rather bad development practices. Why did Netscapes market erode? Because they failed to get better. Their own incompetence... Microsoft did nothing more than yell "Boo!" and they crumbled. The free market is unfair and only the strong survive. The collapse of Enron was probably Microsoft's fault as well. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:02:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
