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.
#6 NS got beat fairly?
Monday April 3rd, 2000 4:56 PM
You are replying to this message
"IMHO, NS got 'beat' fairly and squarely. They had a bad business model which was to sell browsers."
This is contrary to the judge's ruling. You cannot abstract out Microsoft's anticompetitive practices and make presumptions about how Netscape would have fared in the market.
Since when was simply *selling* a product a bad business model? Creating a product for a profit is bad business? Well, maybe in an environment when a predatory monopolist gives away a competitive product for free to close out competition.
IE4 was never "clearly better than Netscape 4". Their ActiveX system is *still*, to this day, a major security risk. Their DOM may have had more functionality, but it was not a compliant implementation (and still isn't). Their Java had proprietary extensions. Their UI is a mess. Their app was bloated, and overtook the operating system, forcing a load of DLLs at bootup, to make IE appear faster when started.
IE was, in many ways, designed not only to insinuate itself into the user's Operating System, but also to block Netscape's competition. What would have happened if IE remained just a browser, and not an Operating System extension? Would they have "won" the browser wars? We'll never know.
In Judge Jackson's words, Microsoft has done "violence" to the competitive process. How can that be ignored?