3 ms·
> I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal e
by nodamage 6y ago
> I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this.
Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal explicitly said this.
> Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows
Not quite. As I explain in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455) Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers. Whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was not actually addressed by the court. Microsoft also had a much higher market share (95%) than Apple currently does.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers Was that separate from the anti-competitive OEM license / "Windows tax" issue around the same time? The one about how OEMs were "forced" to sell machines with Windows licenses and couldn't sell a machine without an OEM license to someone who just wanted a box to run Linux or OS/2 on?
- nodamage 6y agoYes, that was a separate case from 1994 and they ultimately settled with the DOJ. The browser stuff happened a few years later in 1998.