3 ms·

IANAL, but according to Wikipedia, it comes down to 'market definition' [1]. The computer market as a whole was recognized to be a 'relevant market', in which M

IANAL, but according to Wikipedia, it comes down to 'market definition' [1]. The computer market as a whole was recognized to be a 'relevant market', in which Microsoft was found to have a dominant position [2]. It's up to lawyers and economists to decide whether the current tablet offerings make up a market in that sense, separate from the cell phone market or the computer market. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_definition [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#...

Tloewald 14y ago
Microsoft's original legal defense of its browser monopoly was that it was an intrinsic feature of the OS (a bunch of graduate students proved this to be false and most viewed the claim at the time as disingenuous -- MS had sewn IE into as much of Windows as possible seemingly with this defense in mind). The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense. Also bear in mind that the case against Microsoft showed a pattern of behavior including its treatment of Java, QuickTime, Borland, and so on. Next, the only significant platform for browsers was desktop computers. So it wasn't a case of MS owning one category of platform among many. It owned the only game in town. Further to this, Netscape had been the dominant player on the Windows platform, and Microsoft had undermined it. Apple has closed its platform to rivals who give away their software on other platforms. Apple doesn't stop Google or Yahoo or Bing from making money from advertising on iOS, all it blocks is, essentially, middlemen. Finally, Netscape was a browser vendor who suffered material damage from having its commercial product undercut by MS bundling policies. No-one sells browsers any more.
- fulafel 14y ago
  > The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense. Relative merits of two bogus arguments aside... It's pretty easy to argue against. Chrome & Firefox would help security (and this additional consumer choice would probably go well with the pro-market regulators). And they could lift the JIT ban on a per app basis.

Tloewald 14y ago

Microsoft's original legal defense of its browser monopoly was that it was an intrinsic feature of the OS (a bunch of graduate students proved this to be false and most viewed the claim at the time as disingenuous -- MS had sewn IE into as much of Windows as possible seemingly with this defense in mind). The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense. Also bear in mind that the case against Microsoft showed a pattern of behavior including its treatment of Java, QuickTime, Borland, and so on. Next, the only significant platform for browsers was desktop computers. So it wasn't a case of MS owning one category of platform among many. It owned the only game in town. Further to this, Netscape had been the dominant player on the Windows platform, and Microsoft had undermined it. Apple has closed its platform to rivals who give away their software on other platforms. Apple doesn't stop Google or Yahoo or Bing from making money from advertising on iOS, all it blocks is, essentially, middlemen. Finally, Netscape was a browser vendor who suffered material damage from having its commercial product undercut by MS bundling policies. No-one sells browsers any more.

fulafel 14y ago
> The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense. Relative merits of two bogus arguments aside... It's pretty easy to argue against. Chrome & Firefox would help security (and this additional consumer choice would probably go well with the pro-market regulators). And they could lift the JIT ban on a per app basis.