3 ms·

On that note, even Internet Explorer (IE) was bundled freely, Microsoft never charged a dime for it. Why was anti-trust pursued against Microsoft then? Honestl

On that note, even Internet Explorer (IE) was bundled freely, Microsoft never charged a dime for it. Why was anti-trust pursued against Microsoft then? Honestly, I see no difference between that scenario and this. If anything, Google has been a lot more guilty than for just monopolizing on a browser here.

rayiner 7y ago
Competitors did. Netscape charges for Communicator Suite for example. There was a monetization model that involves eventually charging for the product once they had a monopoly in browsers. That’s easier to explain than how browsers are monetized today.
nradov 7y ago
The initial release of IE was sold as a separate product in retail stores. Microsoft only added it to Windows later. If IE had been just another Windows feature from the start then it would have been more difficult to make an antitrust case against them.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  What rulings can you point to to support this legal theory? The Sharman Act relates to monopolising any market, it doesn’t make any distinction between markets that are monetised in different ways.
nitwit005 7y ago
Microsoft specifically targeted Netscape, and there was documentation that that was the goal in the form of emails and the like. Chrome wasn't seemingly to target anyone. Google generally makes more money if people use the internet more, so spending to make browsers better has some obvious benefits.
euyyn 7y ago
> Why was anti-trust pursued against Microsoft then? One example among the many things the court found they did was to tell OEMs that they wouldn't license Windows to them if they _also_ included Netscape preinstalled in their computers. The stated purpose, from internal emails, was to prevent Java from becoming the de-facto API for writing applications, which at the time was win32. This was a gigantic barrier of entry that protected Windows' monopoly and they did all those shady things to keep it raised.

rayiner 7y ago

Competitors did. Netscape charges for Communicator Suite for example. There was a monetization model that involves eventually charging for the product once they had a monopoly in browsers. That’s easier to explain than how browsers are monetized today.

nradov 7y ago

The initial release of IE was sold as a separate product in retail stores. Microsoft only added it to Windows later. If IE had been just another Windows feature from the start then it would have been more difficult to make an antitrust case against them.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
What rulings can you point to to support this legal theory? The Sharman Act relates to monopolising any market, it doesn’t make any distinction between markets that are monetised in different ways.

nitwit005 7y ago

Microsoft specifically targeted Netscape, and there was documentation that that was the goal in the form of emails and the like. Chrome wasn't seemingly to target anyone. Google generally makes more money if people use the internet more, so spending to make browsers better has some obvious benefits.

euyyn 7y ago

> Why was anti-trust pursued against Microsoft then? One example among the many things the court found they did was to tell OEMs that they wouldn't license Windows to them if they _also_ included Netscape preinstalled in their computers. The stated purpose, from internal emails, was to prevent Java from becoming the de-facto API for writing applications, which at the time was win32. This was a gigantic barrier of entry that protected Windows' monopoly and they did all those shady things to keep it raised.