3 ms·

That is ridiculous. They got punished because they were ahead of the times, not because they were evil. What they did by bundling IE with Windows was the right

That is ridiculous. They got punished because they were ahead of the times, not because they were evil. What they did by bundling IE with Windows was the right strategic move. They understood that the browser was an integral piece of the experience before anybody else.

protomyth 17y ago
They got punished for making deals that locked Netscape out of the market by making OEM's pay more for including competitors products.
- leej 17y ago
  Intel gives incentives to OEMs to lock out AMD. Google pays Mozilla to lock out other search engines on Firefox start page and search bar (and it does not allow customization at install time). Apple does not allow 3rd party apps colliding with Apple produced ones on App Store. Any comments on these other monopolies' actions? Every company does the same.
  - stepherm 17y ago
    The difference is Mozilla and Apple don't have 9X% market share.
    - InclinedPlane 17y ago
      And google doesn't have 9x% market share?
      - statictype 17y ago
        Well, no, actually, I'm pretty sure they don't. You'd be surprised at how many people still use Yahoo for search.
      - carussell 17y ago
        Is Google using that 9x% market share (in search engines) to decimate competition in other markets based solely on the tying occurring in the original market (i.e., what Microsoft was actually convicted of doing)? No.
  - jpcx01 17y ago
    Intel is facing massive fines in EU for its business practices regardarding AMD.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    I'll skip the Intel / AMD thing, it is already being looked at. It seems as though it would be considered anti-competitive. Google is buying a placement (they pay Mozilla and probably Apple). This really doesn't do much in the way of restricting the activities of other search players. Google is more likely to get themselves in trouble with the FCC over Google Voice. Apple does not have the market share to matter. There are plenty of phones and Apple's share is tiny compared to someone like Nokia. Restricting the types of apps for a closed system hasn't got anyone in trouble yet, since you have to do a lot of logic leaps / market segmenting to get to a monopoly position for Apple. Heck, the iPod and iTunes are nowhere near monopolies. Microsoft, in order to protect Internet Explorer (product A), charged higher prices on Windows (product B) to OEMs that wanted to include Netscape Navigator. This is an illegal tying of products. It is considered a restriction of trade. Given Microsoft's market share (and probably, sadly, Microsoft's at that time low contributions to political parties), this is major league anti-competitive behavior. Tying of unrelated products is the problem. As a side note, I get that you are trying to prove a point with the logic "everyone does it, so it is fine", but I am neither fond of that particular phrase nor do I believe it is true for that matter.
tjogin 17y ago
Hah, Microsoft underestimated the importance of the internet for several years. Netscape was the big browser before IE was bundled with Windows, remember? Their bundling of IE with Windows, however "strategically right" it was, was also an abuse of monopoly power. And they were convicted of it.
- ewanmcteagle 17y ago
  How is giving consumers more for less an abuse of power?
  - tjogin 17y ago
    Ask the court.
  - pohl 17y ago
    It's incorrect to assume that their motivations were to give consumers more for less. These quotations from that era paint a different picture: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free" - Paul Maritz "We're giving away a pretty good browser as part of the operating system. How long can they survive selling it?" - Steve Ballmer
    - ewanmcteagle 17y ago
      What difference do the motivations make? Browsers are now free. If I can get a few more apps free with my OS, I'd like those too.
      - pohl 17y ago
        I see what may be two separate questions here: 1) Why did the court consider motivations to be important in the US v Microsoft antitrust case? The body of law and precedent requires that it does, in this case. Though I am not a lawyer, a quick google search found a key phrase in Judge Jackson's Conclusions of Law document: "once it is proved that the defendant possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, liability for monopolization depends on a showing that the defendant used anticompetitive methods to achieve or maintain its position." http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm That last phrase "to achieve or maintain its position" may involve the consideration of motivations. Otherwise, a defendant might say "we weren't dumping our product; we were merely giving our customers more for less!" The discovery of telling quotations such as the two above would give lie to such a defense, and this is why the "cut off their air supply" quotation was considered so carefully during the proceeding. That document is very interesting to read. It discusses motivations in several places. 2) Why does it matter today, now that browsers are (for the most part, Opera and others excluded) free? Well, I guess it's really the Consent Decree and the Rule of Law that makes it matter today. If the terms of your divorce say that you're not allowed to see your ex-wife's children, it doesn't matter if 8 years have passed and you have since stopped drinking. You must abide by the terms of the decree to avoid contempt of court. I said "8 years" in the above example, because that decree became effective in 2001. It's interesting to note that there was a prior decree in 1995, and Microsoft did actually have to go through a contempt of court proceeding for not being in compliance with its terms: http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/dojvmsft/Default.htm http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/dojvmsft/Default.htm
locopati 17y ago
By integral piece of the experience, do you mean non-standards-compliant piece of dung?
rbanffy 17y ago
There is no evidence Microsoft was ever ahead of its time with the possible exception of building a BASIC interpreter for the Altair. Emphasis on "possible".
InclinedPlane 17y ago
Bundling the browser with the OS was the right thing to do, independent of any other actions of MS. EVERY MODERN OPERATING SYSTEM COMES BUNDLED WITH A BROWSER. Mac OS, Ubuntu, even the Palm Pre. People like picking on MS because they believe in their heart of hearts that it was some evil on MS's part which led to IE becoming the dominant browser, but that is not so. At the crucial moment MS had the better browser (IE 4 vs. Netscape 4), I made the switch myself to IE when nobody else was using it because it was a better experience (I currently use chrome for the same reasons). At a time when Netscape was bloated, slow, unstable and had serious usability problems, IE was faster, more stable, and had a better UI. MS bundled their browser with their OS. And, even more importantly, Netscape went into a phase of directionless thrashing around. We know now that they rewrote their code base for NS 4 for no reason whatsoever. They continued to churn their code for several years with no noticeable improvements to the core browser functionality. People tend to forget that Netscape effectively died at the height of the browser wars. They screwed up so bad that they dumped the browser on the open source community, which spent several years cleaning up the code until it finally turned into a decent browser. But by then Netscape's failure and MS's success had already cemented IE as the dominant browser, at the time. But despite IE's bundling there is today again a healthy competition amongst browsers. Firefox has a sizable marketshare with chrome, safari, opera and others as viable alternatives. Solid proof that with a better browser it's possible to compete against bundled browsers.
- tjmc 17y ago
  You're right that MS won the browser wars because IE4 was simply better, but MS made a critical error by preventing OEMs from bundling Netscape. They would have won anyway, but instead they needlessly created an underdog and got pinned (rightly IMHO) for abusing their market position. The interesting thing about the browser wars is it's one of the few occasions when history was written by the vanquished.

protomyth 17y ago

They got punished for making deals that locked Netscape out of the market by making OEM's pay more for including competitors products.

leej 17y ago
Intel gives incentives to OEMs to lock out AMD. Google pays Mozilla to lock out other search engines on Firefox start page and search bar (and it does not allow customization at install time). Apple does not allow 3rd party apps colliding with Apple produced ones on App Store. Any comments on these other monopolies' actions? Every company does the same.
- stepherm 17y ago
  The difference is Mozilla and Apple don't have 9X% market share.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    And google doesn't have 9x% market share?
    - statictype 17y ago
      Well, no, actually, I'm pretty sure they don't. You'd be surprised at how many people still use Yahoo for search.
    - carussell 17y ago
      Is Google using that 9x% market share (in search engines) to decimate competition in other markets based solely on the tying occurring in the original market (i.e., what Microsoft was actually convicted of doing)? No.
- jpcx01 17y ago
  Intel is facing massive fines in EU for its business practices regardarding AMD.
- protomyth 17y ago
  I'll skip the Intel / AMD thing, it is already being looked at. It seems as though it would be considered anti-competitive. Google is buying a placement (they pay Mozilla and probably Apple). This really doesn't do much in the way of restricting the activities of other search players. Google is more likely to get themselves in trouble with the FCC over Google Voice. Apple does not have the market share to matter. There are plenty of phones and Apple's share is tiny compared to someone like Nokia. Restricting the types of apps for a closed system hasn't got anyone in trouble yet, since you have to do a lot of logic leaps / market segmenting to get to a monopoly position for Apple. Heck, the iPod and iTunes are nowhere near monopolies. Microsoft, in order to protect Internet Explorer (product A), charged higher prices on Windows (product B) to OEMs that wanted to include Netscape Navigator. This is an illegal tying of products. It is considered a restriction of trade. Given Microsoft's market share (and probably, sadly, Microsoft's at that time low contributions to political parties), this is major league anti-competitive behavior. Tying of unrelated products is the problem. As a side note, I get that you are trying to prove a point with the logic "everyone does it, so it is fine", but I am neither fond of that particular phrase nor do I believe it is true for that matter.

tjogin 17y ago

Hah, Microsoft underestimated the importance of the internet for several years. Netscape was the big browser before IE was bundled with Windows, remember? Their bundling of IE with Windows, however "strategically right" it was, was also an abuse of monopoly power. And they were convicted of it.

ewanmcteagle 17y ago
How is giving consumers more for less an abuse of power?
- tjogin 17y ago
  Ask the court.
- pohl 17y ago
  It's incorrect to assume that their motivations were to give consumers more for less. These quotations from that era paint a different picture: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free" - Paul Maritz "We're giving away a pretty good browser as part of the operating system. How long can they survive selling it?" - Steve Ballmer
  - ewanmcteagle 17y ago
    What difference do the motivations make? Browsers are now free. If I can get a few more apps free with my OS, I'd like those too.
    - pohl 17y ago
      I see what may be two separate questions here: 1) Why did the court consider motivations to be important in the US v Microsoft antitrust case? The body of law and precedent requires that it does, in this case. Though I am not a lawyer, a quick google search found a key phrase in Judge Jackson's Conclusions of Law document: "once it is proved that the defendant possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, liability for monopolization depends on a showing that the defendant used anticompetitive methods to achieve or maintain its position." http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218600/218633.htm That last phrase "to achieve or maintain its position" may involve the consideration of motivations. Otherwise, a defendant might say "we weren't dumping our product; we were merely giving our customers more for less!" The discovery of telling quotations such as the two above would give lie to such a defense, and this is why the "cut off their air supply" quotation was considered so carefully during the proceeding. That document is very interesting to read. It discusses motivations in several places. 2) Why does it matter today, now that browsers are (for the most part, Opera and others excluded) free? Well, I guess it's really the Consent Decree and the Rule of Law that makes it matter today. If the terms of your divorce say that you're not allowed to see your ex-wife's children, it doesn't matter if 8 years have passed and you have since stopped drinking. You must abide by the terms of the decree to avoid contempt of court. I said "8 years" in the above example, because that decree became effective in 2001. It's interesting to note that there was a prior decree in 1995, and Microsoft did actually have to go through a contempt of court proceeding for not being in compliance with its terms: http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/dojvmsft/Default.htm http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/dojvmsft/Default.htm

locopati 17y ago

By integral piece of the experience, do you mean non-standards-compliant piece of dung?

rbanffy 17y ago

There is no evidence Microsoft was ever ahead of its time with the possible exception of building a BASIC interpreter for the Altair. Emphasis on "possible".

InclinedPlane 17y ago

Bundling the browser with the OS was the right thing to do, independent of any other actions of MS. EVERY MODERN OPERATING SYSTEM COMES BUNDLED WITH A BROWSER. Mac OS, Ubuntu, even the Palm Pre. People like picking on MS because they believe in their heart of hearts that it was some evil on MS's part which led to IE becoming the dominant browser, but that is not so. At the crucial moment MS had the better browser (IE 4 vs. Netscape 4), I made the switch myself to IE when nobody else was using it because it was a better experience (I currently use chrome for the same reasons). At a time when Netscape was bloated, slow, unstable and had serious usability problems, IE was faster, more stable, and had a better UI. MS bundled their browser with their OS. And, even more importantly, Netscape went into a phase of directionless thrashing around. We know now that they rewrote their code base for NS 4 for no reason whatsoever. They continued to churn their code for several years with no noticeable improvements to the core browser functionality. People tend to forget that Netscape effectively died at the height of the browser wars. They screwed up so bad that they dumped the browser on the open source community, which spent several years cleaning up the code until it finally turned into a decent browser. But by then Netscape's failure and MS's success had already cemented IE as the dominant browser, at the time. But despite IE's bundling there is today again a healthy competition amongst browsers. Firefox has a sizable marketshare with chrome, safari, opera and others as viable alternatives. Solid proof that with a better browser it's possible to compete against bundled browsers.

tjmc 17y ago
You're right that MS won the browser wars because IE4 was simply better, but MS made a critical error by preventing OEMs from bundling Netscape. They would have won anyway, but instead they needlessly created an underdog and got pinned (rightly IMHO) for abusing their market position. The interesting thing about the browser wars is it's one of the few occasions when history was written by the vanquished.