5 ms·

The EU just followed what the US courts said during Clinton. Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. In retrospect, the courts were wrong. Netscape's profit mod

The EU just followed what the US courts said during Clinton. Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. In retrospect, the courts were wrong. Netscape's profit model made no sense. People didn't want to pay for commodity software like a web browser. MS had every right to release a free one bundled with their platform. The web isn't some optional thing. A browser is part of every OS now. On top of it, the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs so that laptop that's full of shitware that slows Windows down and gives it a huge attack surface is not something MS could fight until recently with Win8. The government empowered OEMs. The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. In the end the best product wins. I, and everyone I know, got Chrome via downloading it. Not via some fancy choice menu. I think the truth here is that Netscape had a lot of friends in the government and Clinton's DOJ wanted to make some career defining kills. Bill Gates was an obvious target. It was wrong for Clinton to attack MS. It didn't stop IE6's dominance, it didn't revive Netscape, and it didn't fix anything. If anything, it made everything worse. Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. MS wasn't stopping Firefox or Netscape from being installed. Lets give our companies room to compete. Lets not applaud heavy handed legislation from either the US or the EU. I mean, google fucking maps can't even be seen in Spain due to corruption. Governments are just as corrupt as business. Except government is an unstoppable monopoly with guns.

Eric_WVGG 12y ago
Agree that in hindsight web browsers was a dumb thing to take down MS over. It was difficult at the time to make the claim that a browser-less computer would someday be effectively useless, but that point came. The lawsuit should have been over their Office suite. (And no, in the end, the best product did not win.)
finid 12y ago
@drzaiusapelord, I honestly don't know where to start with you, but I'll try. > Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. No, he didn't. Bill Gates and Co got away with what amounted to a misdemeanor, when they could easily have been nailed with multiple felonies. Bill Gates once bragged openly that MS got away with a slap on the wrist. He knew what he was talking about. > the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs What are you talking about? MS controlled everybody, including Intel. One of the revelations of the anti-trust trial was that at one time, Intel wanted to give the ISP business a shot. Gates objected because that was competition he didn't want to face. Recall that Steve McNeally of then Sun Microsystems once had this idea of the network as the computer, what we now call Cloud computing. MS drew a hammer at it because of the obvious threat to its cash cow - Windows and Office. MS had (still has) a noose around the necks of OEMs. Those guys have to pay MS for every PC they ship, even once that don't ship with Windows. Do you know what effect that had on their desire to ship any other OS on their PCs? > The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. BS! If the govt had not stepped in to curtail the activities of an evil empire, technological progress, especially in the software arena, would have been set back a lot more than it has. And it took a democratic administration to do it. No republican administration was going to do it, because, after all, they are always good for business. > Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. That and the test of the last paragraph of your comment is proof that you're a paid shrill. Yes, tech can be a meritocracy, if the playing field is level. Unfortunately, it often is not, because tech companies can get into deals that are anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Recall that a few years ago Intel was fined heavily because it had made deals with companies that discouraged them from using AMD's processors. Do you know how damaging deals like that had on AMD and on consumer choices? Well-informed people can migrate to any other software they like. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users at that time were not well-informed. Remember that we are talking of a time before commercial Internet/Web. Even today, there are people who still think that their OS is Internet Explorer and that Yahoo is a browser.
- cema 12y ago
  > Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. That and the test of the last paragraph of your comment is proof that you're a paid shrill. This is an unwarranted attack on the person. I may agree with you on the content -- the ideal of the meritocratic technological society has not been achieved yet, and the field is not level. But personal attacks are not needed here, they are not useful for the discussion.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >that you're a paid shrill. Please try to act like a mature adult. I'm an HN commentator like you with a long history here. Your shrill attacks aren't helping your argument.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
And here we go again. The lack of knowing what a monopoly is and what it can and cannot do.
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Do you know that Microsoft was bribing websites to include features that Netscape would not render properly? How does that fit into your "tech is generally a meritocracy" view?

Eric_WVGG 12y ago

Agree that in hindsight web browsers was a dumb thing to take down MS over. It was difficult at the time to make the claim that a browser-less computer would someday be effectively useless, but that point came. The lawsuit should have been over their Office suite. (And no, in the end, the best product did not win.)

finid 12y ago

@drzaiusapelord, I honestly don't know where to start with you, but I'll try. > Clinton turned MS into a whipping boy. No, he didn't. Bill Gates and Co got away with what amounted to a misdemeanor, when they could easily have been nailed with multiple felonies. Bill Gates once bragged openly that MS got away with a slap on the wrist. He knew what he was talking about. > the deal MS signed didn't let it control OEMs What are you talking about? MS controlled everybody, including Intel. One of the revelations of the anti-trust trial was that at one time, Intel wanted to give the ISP business a shot. Gates objected because that was competition he didn't want to face. Recall that Steve McNeally of then Sun Microsystems once had this idea of the network as the computer, what we now call Cloud computing. MS drew a hammer at it because of the obvious threat to its cash cow - Windows and Office. MS had (still has) a noose around the necks of OEMs. Those guys have to pay MS for every PC they ship, even once that don't ship with Windows. Do you know what effect that had on their desire to ship any other OS on their PCs? > The Netscape/MS fight wasn't worth it. The government should never have stepped in. BS! If the govt had not stepped in to curtail the activities of an evil empire, technological progress, especially in the software arena, would have been set back a lot more than it has. And it took a democratic administration to do it. No republican administration was going to do it, because, after all, they are always good for business. > Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. That and the test of the last paragraph of your comment is proof that you're a paid shrill. Yes, tech can be a meritocracy, if the playing field is level. Unfortunately, it often is not, because tech companies can get into deals that are anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Recall that a few years ago Intel was fined heavily because it had made deals with companies that discouraged them from using AMD's processors. Do you know how damaging deals like that had on AMD and on consumer choices? Well-informed people can migrate to any other software they like. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users at that time were not well-informed. Remember that we are talking of a time before commercial Internet/Web. Even today, there are people who still think that their OS is Internet Explorer and that Yahoo is a browser.

cema 12y ago
> Tech is generally a meritocracy. People can just migrate to whatever software they life. That and the test of the last paragraph of your comment is proof that you're a paid shrill. This is an unwarranted attack on the person. I may agree with you on the content -- the ideal of the meritocratic technological society has not been achieved yet, and the field is not level. But personal attacks are not needed here, they are not useful for the discussion.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>that you're a paid shrill. Please try to act like a mature adult. I'm an HN commentator like you with a long history here. Your shrill attacks aren't helping your argument.

icantthinkofone 12y ago

And here we go again. The lack of knowing what a monopoly is and what it can and cannot do.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

Do you know that Microsoft was bribing websites to include features that Netscape would not render properly? How does that fit into your "tech is generally a meritocracy" view?