5 ms·

Why are you continuing to argue when you clearly don't understand antitrust?

scarface_74 4y ago
Well, in that case neither does the justice department for the last three decades since none of them have agreed with HN lawyers theories...
- saurik 4y ago
  You seem to keep ignoring, though, that Microsoft lost :/. Like: Microsoft was charged, the case was heard, and Microsoft lost. The judge even ruled that Microsoft be broke into two companies! So, no: you are just wasting everyone's time here by insisting something that is 100% absolutely incorrect. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/microsoft-antitrust-case/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/m... FWIW, the reason you might be a bit confused--though I do not think this excuses the time you're spending here--is that Microsoft did not end up broken into two because they appealed that part of the ruling and "won"... but that court of appeals actually re-affirmed that Microsoft's actions were illegal! https://www.computerworld.com/article/2582620/appeals-court-reverses-microsoft-breakup-order.amp.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2582620/appeals-court-... > The appeals court, in its decision, specifically rejected Jackson's order that Microsoft be split. "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality," the decision said in part. This is essentially akin to someone being convicted of something and then appealing the decision to an appeals court that decides "OK, the defendant clearly is guilty, but the chain of evidence used by the district attorney was compromised and so none of it is admissible; thereby, you cannot send them to jail, even though we know they are guilty". (edit: Also, there were, in fact, serious ramifications on Microsoft for this loss... Bill Gates largely had to step down as CEO due to having gotten the courts so mad at Microsoft that it was almost broken apart, the IE team had a difficult time hiring anyone due to the shame and Internet Explorer ended up on life support <- this is often blamed in Microsoft "not caring as they were a monopoly" but that is far from the truth, and the resulting chaos for Microsoft really allowed Apple an entrance with Steve Jobs back at the helm to retake a large market segment. I did a talk about The Fall of the Roman Empire that covered some of these issues, but more detail on IE is likely a nonsequitur.) https://vimeo.com/310654342 https://vimeo.com/310654342
  - scarface_74 4y ago
    And this still has no bearings on the original thing claimed that Microsoft was found to be anti competitive for bundling IE. Not bundling IE was never part of the consent decree. No one ever said there was going to have to be a separate “IE company Inc”. Job first came back to prominence with the iMac, then really took off because of the iPod. Microsoft didn’t fail in the music player market for lack of trying, they had multiple failures - first Plays4Sure and then the Zune. It was execution failure. The same with the phone. Microsoft was never able to compete with an integrated player like Apple except for the Mac.
    - Retric 4y ago
      The degree of bundling was part of the decent degree, including IE with windows was not. Aka the use of private Windows API’s by IE was explicitly banned in the decent decree. The initial case which MS lost would have resulted in splitting the company, on appeal and by the time of the new trial (which they also lost) the government changed its mind into no longer seeking to break up the company. But that was on the government not a legal victory by Microsoft.
      - scarface_74 4y ago
        According to the Wikipedia summary > However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future
        Retric 4y ago
        First they where required to change the OS in a few ways: “H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall: 1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System Product where” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/28/01-29498/united-states-v-microsoft-corporation-revised-proposed-final-judgment-and-competitive-impact https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/28/01-2949... the only way to achieve the above is to change windows code. The API issue wasn’t one of code it was one of documentation: “The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[28]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... It publishing API’s may seem like a strange remedy but it was a common tactic they used to limit competition. Netscape for example couldn’t release Netscape for Windows 95 at release because while the IE tea, had access to API’s they weren’t providing them publicly until release.

Well, in that case neither does the justice department for the last three decades since none of them have agreed with HN lawyers theories...

saurik 4y ago
You seem to keep ignoring, though, that Microsoft lost :/. Like: Microsoft was charged, the case was heard, and Microsoft lost. The judge even ruled that Microsoft be broke into two companies! So, no: you are just wasting everyone's time here by insisting something that is 100% absolutely incorrect. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/microsoft-antitrust-case/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/management/m... FWIW, the reason you might be a bit confused--though I do not think this excuses the time you're spending here--is that Microsoft did not end up broken into two because they appealed that part of the ruling and "won"... but that court of appeals actually re-affirmed that Microsoft's actions were illegal! https://www.computerworld.com/article/2582620/appeals-court-reverses-microsoft-breakup-order.amp.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2582620/appeals-court-... > The appeals court, in its decision, specifically rejected Jackson's order that Microsoft be split. "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality," the decision said in part. This is essentially akin to someone being convicted of something and then appealing the decision to an appeals court that decides "OK, the defendant clearly is guilty, but the chain of evidence used by the district attorney was compromised and so none of it is admissible; thereby, you cannot send them to jail, even though we know they are guilty". (edit: Also, there were, in fact, serious ramifications on Microsoft for this loss... Bill Gates largely had to step down as CEO due to having gotten the courts so mad at Microsoft that it was almost broken apart, the IE team had a difficult time hiring anyone due to the shame and Internet Explorer ended up on life support <- this is often blamed in Microsoft "not caring as they were a monopoly" but that is far from the truth, and the resulting chaos for Microsoft really allowed Apple an entrance with Steve Jobs back at the helm to retake a large market segment. I did a talk about The Fall of the Roman Empire that covered some of these issues, but more detail on IE is likely a nonsequitur.) https://vimeo.com/310654342 https://vimeo.com/310654342
- scarface_74 4y ago
  And this still has no bearings on the original thing claimed that Microsoft was found to be anti competitive for bundling IE. Not bundling IE was never part of the consent decree. No one ever said there was going to have to be a separate “IE company Inc”. Job first came back to prominence with the iMac, then really took off because of the iPod. Microsoft didn’t fail in the music player market for lack of trying, they had multiple failures - first Plays4Sure and then the Zune. It was execution failure. The same with the phone. Microsoft was never able to compete with an integrated player like Apple except for the Mac.
  - Retric 4y ago
    The degree of bundling was part of the decent degree, including IE with windows was not. Aka the use of private Windows API’s by IE was explicitly banned in the decent decree. The initial case which MS lost would have resulted in splitting the company, on appeal and by the time of the new trial (which they also lost) the government changed its mind into no longer seeking to break up the company. But that was on the government not a legal victory by Microsoft.
    - scarface_74 4y ago
      According to the Wikipedia summary > However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future
      - Retric 4y ago
        First they where required to change the OS in a few ways: “H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall: 1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System Product where” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/28/01-29498/united-states-v-microsoft-corporation-revised-proposed-final-judgment-and-competitive-impact https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/28/01-2949... the only way to achieve the above is to change windows code. The API issue wasn’t one of code it was one of documentation: “The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[28]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... It publishing API’s may seem like a strange remedy but it was a common tactic they used to limit competition. Netscape for example couldn’t release Netscape for Windows 95 at release because while the IE tea, had access to API’s they weren’t providing them publicly until release.