4 ms·

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.

• 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.
    • AlbertCory 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • btilly 3y ago
        If you really wanted to not go there, you shouldn't have characterized my argument in a false way. And when your mistake was pointed out, you should have acknowledged the point. Go ahead. Avoid the tedium of responding. It will avoid me the unpleasantness of further dishonest evasion on your part. Meanwhile the facts remain these. From 1990 through 2011, Microsoft was continually being sued by or under consent decree in the USA for antitrust violations. From 1993 through 2013, the same was true in the EU. This is in addition to a long list of lawsuits from companies that their behavior harmed. All evidence from external behavior and internal emails in court says that their attitude did not change until 2008. This is not a counterfactual argument. And it provides good reason to believe that the 1998 publicity of having Bill Gates in court did not deter Microsoft from further antitrust actions.
        • AlbertCory 3y ago
          You really want an unpleasant argument, don't you? Maybe someone else here will give you one. Have a nice day.
        • edgyquant 3y ago
          They did not falsely characterize your argument. They are correct that it hinges on knowing the future when no one could do.