3 ms·

> that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes. Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right? I don't think mo

> that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes. Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right? I don't think most Americans could tell you what Netscape is, let alone why Microsoft was sued or why it should have been humiliating.

rashkov 3y ago
As per the article, the significance is that Microsoft did not use its platform dominance to crush an upstart google
- btilly 3y ago
  I understood it very differently at the time. Microsoft felt that it had won the browser wars so thoroughly that they dismantled most of their IE team and took their eyes off the ball. Nobody else could make a competitive browser, and therefore nobody could add browser features that would undermine the importance of Windows for applications. They didn't realize that they already had added the key feature for the Outlook team. The first real use of XMLHttpRequest was Gmail in 2004. Most people just thought of it as a cute trick. It wasn't until Google Maps and the coining of the term AJAX that people thought differently. Microsoft, of course, had already been hit with the 2004 EU decree, and kept its eyes off the ball. By the time Microsoft paid attention, everyone was using it, Firefox was competitive with IE, Safari wasn't too far behind, and Google was already working on Chrome. But by then it was too late. Microsoft didn't have the IE team, and had been shocked at the EU penalties. Therefore I give the credit for Microsoft not crushing Google to the EU antitrust, and not the USA antitrust. Which really did have no teeth. As can be seen by their efforts to anticompetitively promote Windows Media Player.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Funny enough, XMLHttpRequest[0] was conceived because Microsoft needed to build out a web client for Exchange[1], which was a precursor to Gmail in many ways. In absolute terms, Gmail had more users and showcased the possibilities of web apps more broadly, however Outlook for the web in 2001-2004 was pretty sophisticated for its time [0]: Though it was called ActiveXObject for a time [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090130092236/http://www.alexhopmann.com/xmlhttp.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20090130092236/http://www.alexho...
    - btilly 3y ago
      That's what I was referring to with, They didn't realize that they already had added the key feature for the Outlook team.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - dekhn 3y ago
    I don't understand why people think XHR is a cute trick. Desktop applications used nonblocking RPC (as did many other apps) outside of the web for a long time. So much of the web has been rediscovering and reimplementing (usually in a worse way) the basics of high quality, interactive applications about a decade too late.
AlbertCory 3y ago
> Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right? Right. Gary Reback, the lawyer for Netscape back then, has said that Google's very existence depends on the Microsoft trial. As for Americans' ignorance: irrelevant. They can't tell you what Watergate was, either.
- btilly 3y ago
  I disagreed with him back then as well. In the public comment on the Netscape settlement, I was one of the responses against it that the DoJ added to the trial. Here was the position that I had then. Microsoft's documented behavior on previous antitrust cases meant that this settlement would not deter future abuse. And I laid out specifically why that decree would not work. I stand by that opinion now.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    OK. His statement (and yours) rely on counterfactuals: what would MS have done had they not been sued? There is no way to resolve that. Arguing would be tedious.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      I mean, in the world where they did get sued, IE existed and was annoying for the better part of a decade and then succeeded by two more first-party Microsoft browsers. It was right to sue Microsoft, but it also evidently did not fix the state of browser hegemony. The precedent was weak, and arguably more harmful than leaving it up for further deliberation. You can feel the impact on pretty much any FAANG software platform.
    - btilly 3y ago
      In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals? I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitive behavior through past consent decrees, and nothing in the Netscape decision would dissuade them. The EU case in 2004-2008 demonstrated that, following the Netscape decision, Microsoft had not been dissuaded. They continued their anticompetitive behavior and legal brinkmanship, and this was confirmed by internal emails. This fact was why the EU penalties were so high. The judge explicitly wished the fines to be sufficient that Microsoft could not continue to view antitrust consent decrees as just a cost of doing business. His argument that Microsoft was dissuaded is indeed a counterfactual argument. It is a counterfactual argument that contradicts facts established in later court cases. This is why, over 20 years later, I stand by my previous belief. I think that my reasoning then was sound. And my predictions were validated by evidence introduced in later cases.

rashkov 3y ago

As per the article, the significance is that Microsoft did not use its platform dominance to crush an upstart google

btilly 3y ago
I understood it very differently at the time. Microsoft felt that it had won the browser wars so thoroughly that they dismantled most of their IE team and took their eyes off the ball. Nobody else could make a competitive browser, and therefore nobody could add browser features that would undermine the importance of Windows for applications. They didn't realize that they already had added the key feature for the Outlook team. The first real use of XMLHttpRequest was Gmail in 2004. Most people just thought of it as a cute trick. It wasn't until Google Maps and the coining of the term AJAX that people thought differently. Microsoft, of course, had already been hit with the 2004 EU decree, and kept its eyes off the ball. By the time Microsoft paid attention, everyone was using it, Firefox was competitive with IE, Safari wasn't too far behind, and Google was already working on Chrome. But by then it was too late. Microsoft didn't have the IE team, and had been shocked at the EU penalties. Therefore I give the credit for Microsoft not crushing Google to the EU antitrust, and not the USA antitrust. Which really did have no teeth. As can be seen by their efforts to anticompetitively promote Windows Media Player.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Funny enough, XMLHttpRequest[0] was conceived because Microsoft needed to build out a web client for Exchange[1], which was a precursor to Gmail in many ways. In absolute terms, Gmail had more users and showcased the possibilities of web apps more broadly, however Outlook for the web in 2001-2004 was pretty sophisticated for its time [0]: Though it was called ActiveXObject for a time [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090130092236/http://www.alexhopmann.com/xmlhttp.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20090130092236/http://www.alexho...
  - btilly 3y ago
    That's what I was referring to with, They didn't realize that they already had added the key feature for the Outlook team.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- dekhn 3y ago
  I don't understand why people think XHR is a cute trick. Desktop applications used nonblocking RPC (as did many other apps) outside of the web for a long time. So much of the web has been rediscovering and reimplementing (usually in a worse way) the basics of high quality, interactive applications about a decade too late.

AlbertCory 3y ago

> Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right? Right. Gary Reback, the lawyer for Netscape back then, has said that Google's very existence depends on the Microsoft trial. As for Americans' ignorance: irrelevant. They can't tell you what Watergate was, either.

btilly 3y ago
I disagreed with him back then as well. In the public comment on the Netscape settlement, I was one of the responses against it that the DoJ added to the trial. Here was the position that I had then. Microsoft's documented behavior on previous antitrust cases meant that this settlement would not deter future abuse. And I laid out specifically why that decree would not work. I stand by that opinion now.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  OK. His statement (and yours) rely on counterfactuals: what would MS have done had they not been sued? There is no way to resolve that. Arguing would be tedious.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    I mean, in the world where they did get sued, IE existed and was annoying for the better part of a decade and then succeeded by two more first-party Microsoft browsers. It was right to sue Microsoft, but it also evidently did not fix the state of browser hegemony. The precedent was weak, and arguably more harmful than leaving it up for further deliberation. You can feel the impact on pretty much any FAANG software platform.
  - btilly 3y ago
    In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals? I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitive behavior through past consent decrees, and nothing in the Netscape decision would dissuade them. The EU case in 2004-2008 demonstrated that, following the Netscape decision, Microsoft had not been dissuaded. They continued their anticompetitive behavior and legal brinkmanship, and this was confirmed by internal emails. This fact was why the EU penalties were so high. The judge explicitly wished the fines to be sufficient that Microsoft could not continue to view antitrust consent decrees as just a cost of doing business. His argument that Microsoft was dissuaded is indeed a counterfactual argument. It is a counterfactual argument that contradicts facts established in later court cases. This is why, over 20 years later, I stand by my previous belief. I think that my reasoning then was sound. And my predictions were validated by evidence introduced in later cases.