Microsoft Violated Sherman Antitrust Act
Monday April 3rd, 2000
In his ruling today, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found Microsoft in violation of the Sherman Antritrust Act, stating that "The Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser market".
Microsoft's problem was that they had lost all credibility with the judge, and thus he had no option but to side with the facts presented by the government.
Click here to read an excerpt at ABCNews.com.
Here's a link to the ruling. Click "Full Article" below for some of our own excerpts. More to come, as we go over the ruling in more detail.
#15 Re: Really?
Monday April 3rd, 2000 8:58 PM
You are replying to this message
> It surprises me how people here are not objective.
Huh? Do you read minds or something? Most of us haven't even posted anything yet.
> Mozilla looks like a winner, but trying to act like Netscape4 is superior to IE4 is ridiculous.
Who said that NS4 is better than IE4? Both have their problems. IE has 2 extra counts against them, activex security problem (which most people don't turn off) and stuck to W98 (not very productive when one is not using IE). This does not make IE4 a worst browser than NS4, but it does not make it a better one either.
> It's clear that Netscape management dropped the ball and that MS programmers developed a superior browser.
True that NS didn't see it coming, but to say that MS dev a superior browser? Nah! I wouldn't go that far. I doubt IE would have become popular had MS not put it on those W95/98 CDs.
> Mozilla changed that, but anyone looking at the original Netscape4 source code released has to admit it was a mess, and there was no way they were going to compete without a total rewrite.
Are you saying that you have seen the IE source code and found that it was better? ( not that I have seen it but I would not say that it was NS's messy code that brought it down)
> Netscape refused to "componentize" their browser so AOL could, for instance, embed it as the rendering engine in the AOL client software. This more than anything gave MS an advantage. If I was CTO of AOL, I would have rejected Netscape too.
Well, I sometimes wonder what difference would that have made. MS still had that all powerful desktop...
> IE4 was clearly better than Netscape4. It supported incremental reflow, had faster Java, had "real" dynamic HTML, not just layers tricks, supported a much better "plugin" technique, had support for more standards (XML, CDF, OSD, ...), etc.
Don't give me that DHTML vs layers thing. Layers could very well have been THE DHTML of today. As for standards... please, don't kid me...
> It's one thing to believe that MS hurt Netscape by giving away the browser to free, but it's totally another to act like Netscape had the best, most superior technology.
I'm not sure who you are refering to.
> As far as I can tell, Netscape failed to rewrite the original rendering engine, so each release of Netscape (2,3,4) was merely more monolithic hacks patched into the same base.
As far as I could tell, NS did not have the intention of rewriting it. As for it being monolithic hacks, I don't see how that caused NS to loose market share, after all MS did the same with IE5...
> IMHO, NS got "beat" fairly and squarely. They had a bad business model which was to sell browsers. On the server side, they got beat by Apache and IIS.
They did not have the perfect business model but it wasn't so much a bad idea to sell browser, Opera is doing ok are they not?
> MS is being persecuted for this, but I think the failure of the company was inevitable given their execution.
Everyone can speculate, since it did not happen otherwise. I "speculate" that the "failure" of NS would have happened had MS not given out their browser for free. But who knows, that did not happen. And I'm glad, cause now we've got Moz. Thanks Microsoft for making Netscape open their source code. Someday MS might even be remembered as the greatest contributer to Moz ;-)