3 ms·

Specifically, Microsoft told PC builders (to which MS was a supplier) that they would not sell Windows to them if they intended to pre-install Netscape as well.

Specifically, Microsoft told PC builders (to which MS was a supplier) that they would not sell Windows to them if they intended to pre-install Netscape as well. Microsoft tried to use their monopoly as the supplier of one piece of software (the OS) to distort the market for another piece of software (the browser). Netscape did not give Navigator away to PC builders for free originally; selling volume licenses was their business model, and Microsoft illegally destroyed it. Hence the prosecution.

WalterBright 6y ago
I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it. Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced. Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle? Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the distribution, not about barriers to the installation of Netscape.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Sure, that may be true. And Microsoft also engaged in anticompetitive behavior. The behavior is still illegal, whether or not Netscape crashed. If Microsoft had competed and won on technical merit and/or marketing, that would have been fine. But they didn't.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    My point is that Netscape was uncompetitive due to it being nearly useless from constantly crashing. Blaming Microsoft is misplaced. Today I still have IE on my machine, but I never use it, because Chrome causes fewer problems. Having it sit on the machine does no harm, and doesn't bother me. That anti-trust battle was the first in history where it was a dispute between one free product and another free product. Nobody ever demonstrated any harm to consumers at all. That was never even an issue at trial. Nobody ever demonstrated that Netscape couldn't be installed.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      None of that makes Microsoft's behavior more legal. So what are you arguing endlessly about?

WalterBright 6y ago

I quit using Netscape because it crashed far more often than Explorer. Nobody tried to stop me from using Netscape. I had no trouble pushing a button and installing it. Netscape in those days was a borderline unusable product, and trying to blame Microsoft is misplaced. Have you ever tried to install another browser on your kindle? Also, much of the drama in the trial was about Microsoft removing Explorer from the distribution, not about barriers to the installation of Netscape.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Sure, that may be true. And Microsoft also engaged in anticompetitive behavior. The behavior is still illegal, whether or not Netscape crashed. If Microsoft had competed and won on technical merit and/or marketing, that would have been fine. But they didn't.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  My point is that Netscape was uncompetitive due to it being nearly useless from constantly crashing. Blaming Microsoft is misplaced. Today I still have IE on my machine, but I never use it, because Chrome causes fewer problems. Having it sit on the machine does no harm, and doesn't bother me. That anti-trust battle was the first in history where it was a dispute between one free product and another free product. Nobody ever demonstrated any harm to consumers at all. That was never even an issue at trial. Nobody ever demonstrated that Netscape couldn't be installed.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    None of that makes Microsoft's behavior more legal. So what are you arguing endlessly about?