RE: No Microsoft Breakup

>Chris says:
>
>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.

If they make it a part of the OS, it's a part of the OS.  Period.  The
AS/400 database is a part of the OS though most PC and Unix folks can't
conceptualize databases as being a part of the OS.  Same with spool
management, TCP/IP stacks, or save/restore functions.


>Hmm, I wasn't being dramatic or upset when I wrote it.

As far as drama goes, I call 'em as I see 'em.


>First, the emails quoted in the DOJ court case used to get the conviction
in
>the first place state that Microsoft specifically 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.

I still think integrating the browser with the OS was a technically shrewd
thing to do.  I don't think that an opportunity to improve the operating
system and stabilize the Windows environment should be hampered by the fact
that it puts browser competition out of business, or gives the customer
fewer layered products to choose from.  I'd like to see whether the e-mails
documented an intent to put Netscape out of business or merely identified
that Microsoft executives knew integrating IE with Windows would put
Netscape out of business.  Were they hunting for the meat or merely
anticipating their gravy?


>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.

I'm not confused about the purpose of anti-trust laws (as you've
dramatically stated twice).  The oppressed competitive vendors are typically
the ones to lobby for an anti-trust suit, not the customers.  You overlooked
my suggestion that we customers should lobby for an anti-trust suit against
IBM for UDB/400.


>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.

Nope, I'm not confused.  You're blurring the concept of competition.  My
analogy is not about alternate midrange choices -- it's about alternate
database choices.  By your logic it should be OK for Microsoft to integrate
IE into Windows because those who choose Microsoft systems could go out and
buy a Macintosh and Netscape.  It wasn't about the system -- it was about
the layered application.  Microsoft crippled their competition by
integrating a layer of software into their OS, thus eliminating customers
need to buy alternative solutions.  By your logic and interpretation of law,
shouldn't we ignorant customers be protected from this AS/400 database
ripoff?  We have a right to choose alternative databases for our AS/400
systems and the government should force IBM to provide the full API to
anyone who wants it.


Look, it's been pretty clear that Microsoft has been guilty of some
extremely dubious business practices (many of them surpass the
borderline-fraud we call "Interactive Feature").  I just feel that
integrating the browser with the OS is a great technical innovation.  It's
pretty cool that presentation is presentation is presentation, whether
you're presenting icons on a desktop, file structures in Windows Explorer,
or data, graphics, and forms in an application.  Having been raised on the
AS/400 I hate this potluck supper world of marginally compatible, allegedly
open browsers, databases, TCP/IP stacks, COBOL compilers, and everything
that we used to take for granted in our "operating system".  Maybe if I had
a crystal ball I could prove you right -- I might find that Microsoft chose
to bury Netscape, and that the technical innovation was just gravy.  I've
already gone on record as hating Microsoft for marketing vaporware and
getting by on promises, projections, and potential.  I just wish the Justice
Department found a better case against Microsoft, a few year earlier.

-Jim

James P. Damato
Manager - Technical Administration
Dollar General Corporation
<mailto:jdamato@dollargeneral.com>