|
>>Chris wrote: >>I think the point of it is, The Market didn't choose. >>The whole point of the DOJ case is that the market is manipulated by a >>monopoly which controls the distribution channels. As a result, there is no >>way the market can choose. >>SNIP< >>After all, if Microsoft is the only deliverer of Java applets then what >>would be their incentive to make Java perform better than ActiveX? >>Chris Rehm John wrote: >Thanks Chris; >That was my point. If everyone had knowledge of the contract agreements >the hardware/software providers were under by M$ (Either sell 100% of our >OS or none at all, etc) from the late 80's thru the early/mid 90's they >would understand the market didn't 'Choose' anything. > >"It doesn't seem too bad so far, said the lobster in a pan of cool water >sitting on a stove that was just turned on" > >How warm is the water so far everybody? Believe it or not I was trying to be nice but you guys are nice. I am fairly militant in my attitude towards M$ and the DOJ case so I was trying to notch it down for the list. I'm not so sure if things would have turned out different but M$'s tacticts were extremely effective and IMHO undoubtedly anti-competitive. If anyone is interested I think Glen or someone posted a URL that actually has some fairly balanced and representative information on the issue. I've looked at it and really enjoyed just can't find it...... I should retract my statement about the market deciding. I wonder if most people don't know what M$ did or what was the basis of the DOJ consent decree: 1.) Most contracts that HDW vendors for M$ pre-installs required the HDW vendor to pay per processor. That is no matter if you wanted to ship OS/2 or something else you had to pay M$ for that machine. 60+% of all MS-DOS and over 40% Windows contracts were of that form. How many vendors would ship anything else? 2.) Non-disclosure agreements for developers who were involved in the pre- release of WIN95 (still like that LOSE95) legally obligated them to not develop software on a competative OS. Hmmmm. 3.) Then there was the issue of M$ application developers having access to certain functions within the OS that were not made openly available. Now, these are my interpretations of the basis for the DOJ consent decree. I highly suggest anyone interested do some more investigating. If I can find the URL for the site I spoke of I will let you know. Based on items 1 and 2 it's a small wonder we are where we are. These 'business practices' practically guaranteed the fate of OS/2 and Apple. After reading some very balanced opinions on this case I have come to the conclusion that the FTC has no xxxxx, the DOJ consent decree is a slap on the wrist, and M$ should not be the most admired corporation in the U.S. as I read somewhere once. I know this has no direct technical relevance to the list but I do believe it affects us all and also is great material for discussion. Chris and John, thanks for your input. Michael Crump Technical Project Leader Ball-Foster Glass Container Corp. AKA Mr. Three Finger Salure followed by One Finger Salute +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com". | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.