Re: No Microsoft Breakup

On Thursday 06 September 2001 02:17 pm, Jim Damato wrote:

> The browser WAS an interface accessing remote machines.
>
> As the technology evolved browsers became interfaces for more than just
> remote web/text/graphics content.  It became clear that this would become
> the presentation for local or remote applications.  I think that Microsoft
> understood that browsing was going to become the interface of choice and
> that it would be a good idea to migrate the Windows desktop to that format.
> The browser is becoming infrastructure, not an application.  If all
> Microsoft did was pre-install IE with Windows I think that there would be
> legitimate grounds for an antitrust suit.  What they really did was make it
> a part of the desktop and the OS, or establish that as a technical
> direction.

To the HLL interpreter, it doesn't matter if the data came from the local or
remote machine. But that interpreter isn't a part of the OS. I just don't see
any way to conceptualize it as being part of the OS.

> >Thus allowing the monopoly power over
> >the OS market to be used to crush innovation. Once the browser threat is
> >under control, use the control of the browser market to further destroy
> >threats, like say, eliminating non-Microsoft technologies.
>
> Wait a few days to calm down, have a beer, and reread this one.  Such
> drama.

Hmm, I wasn't being dramatic or upset when I wrote it. I don't drink, by the
way, so I'll pass on the beer.

> In this case I really think that Microsoft was establishing an intelligent
> technical direction, not explicitly trying to wipe out a competitive
> product.  That it was bound to crush Netscape was just gravy.  If OS/400
> V6R1 introduces the ability to save spooled files to tape and track those
> save entries to an archive should Broderick Data Systems sue?  If SEU in
> V5R3 comes with built in source/program/object cross referencing should
> Hawkeye crawl out from under their crushed innovation and call in a
> District Attorney?

Well, let's go with a piece at a time.

First, the emails quoted in the DOJ court case used to get the conviction in
the first place state that Microsoft specificially did this to put Netscape
out of business. The quotes were from Bill Gates and other senior execs.
Darn, I should have saved all that stuff during the trial.

The direction wasn't just to wipe out a competitive product. It was to
eliminate the company founded by the people who had invented the browser
(with Mosaic) because they were a threat to the OS monopoly. That was the
whole reason for this particular charge.

Second, you seem to be confused as to the purpose of anti-trust laws. They
are not to protect the vendor. This is not about "saving Netscape." This is
to protect consumers, even those who are ignorant of the fact they are being
ripped off. (or perhaps especially them).

The purpose behind wiping out Netscape (and other competitors) has been to
protect the Windows monopoly. Not to provide a better solution to the
customer.

Now, when Netscape is gone and XP IE doesn't support Java, won't this
influece the technology used to develop web sites? Won't that push to
eliminate another non-Microsoft technology? So, when you re-read my
"dramatic" quote from above, isn't it just a factual statement of the current
process? A company created a world changing innovation, the browser, this
threatened Microsoft so they crushed that company through their monopoly
control. By using this control to take over that area (browsers) they then
have the ability to remove the non-Microsoft technology that was being
implemented (Java) that might pose a threat to Microsoft.

These factors contribute to keep consumers from ever having a competitive
market place.

> It's funny that as we whine on these forums over the projected demise of
> the AS/400, our favorite integrated system, we're all too willing to
> condemn Microsoft's integration attempts.  It may take a decade or more,
> but if things go the way they have been I predict that Microsoft will
> cripple Oracle by integrating SQL Server with the operating system.  Maybe
> we should start a suit against IBM.  Those evil bastards have bundled their
> database software with OS/400 and won't provide Oracle, Microsoft, or
> Sybase with API documentation so they can write a competitive product.

You are confused in two areas, Jim. First, the difference between a monopoly
and a competing company. Second, about the purpose for anti-trust laws. Those
who choose IBM systems have an alternate midrange choice. Several. So IBM can
now do pretty much as they please. Of course, before the expiration of their
consent decree they could not bundle software with hardware. I don't recall
whatever other restrictions there were.

> -Jim

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.