Re:Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside the Cannibalistic Culture Th...
by edster on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @05:47PM
(#4196376)
For some reason there is always common confusion between legally having a monopoly/monopoly power and abusing a monopoly/monopoly power.
The problem wasn't that MS was bundling a free browser. The problem was when Microsoft forced PC builders to not only include Internet Explorer but explicitly forbid them from including another browser as part of their offering.
Additionally, Microsoft artificially integrated IE into Windows and then tried to claim that the two were designed to work together. It was easily demonstrated that Windows continued to work fine after un-bundling IE.
Re:Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside the Cannibalistic Culture Th...
by protomyth on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @05:48PM
(#4196378)
I'm with you on this. I really think the DOJ went after Microsoft for wrong thing. It would have been better if they had gone after the bundling agreements where Microsoft got paid for every machine shipped regardless if a Microsoft os was on it. Or the buy Office and get a discount on Windows. Netscape had better lobbyists not a better case.
Re:Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside the Cannibalistic Culture Th...
by georgemcbay on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @07:53PM
(#4196879)
Edit (past the editing deadline, whoops):
"Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without an OS today" should read "Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without a browser today".
I can't tell from the quote what your stance on this is, but I think history vindicates the viewpoint you ascribed to Gates.
Can you imagine a serious general purpose OS shipping without an OS today? The idea is ridiculous. Doesn't that then make Gates/MS' decision in this area innovative and forward-looking?