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.
#51 More M$ revisionism
Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:13 PM
You are replying to this message
Nice bit of M$ revisionist history on your part, but..
>but trying to act like Netscape4 is >superior to IE4 is ridiculous.
Why so? "superiority" is a rather subjective concept. In my experience supporting VERY large installed bases of both, I found NS4 far more stable than IE4. By that measure, I would rank NS4 "superior"
>Netscape refused to "componentize" >their browser so AOL could, for >instance, embed it as the >rendering engine in the AOL client >software.
I believe this is inaccurate. My recollection of the court testimony was that Netscape did offer to make the modifications requested by AOL, but AOL went with IE because they wanted to insure that the AOL icon remained on the Windows desktop.
>"real" dynamic HTML, not just layers every bit as proprietary as anything done by Netscape in the layers space.
> support for more standards (XML, CDF, >OSD, ...), etc.
Your kidding right? Please review commentary by the Web Standards Project on IE 4's level of compliance.
> It's one thing to believe that MS hurt >Netscape by giving away the browser to >free, but it's
This doesn't require a big leap of faith, it's well documented in the court proceedings, much of it based on Microsoft's own internal documents.
> IMHO, NS got "beat" fairly and >squarely.
You're clearly ignoring the facts in the case.
> They had a bad business model which >was to sell browsers.
They were quite profitable until M$ came along, so I'd say it was a good business model at the time.
>On the server side, they got beat by >Apache and IIS.
Enterprise Server always has been and is still vastly superior in most respects to either Apache or IIS. Most folks simply aren't motivated to crunch the numbers and do a proper TCO analysis to arrive at an informed conclusion.