Re: No Microsoft Breakup

On Thursday 06 September 2001 04:45 pm, Jim Damato wrote:
> 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.

So, basically, to you whatever the vendor says is part of the OS covers it.
If they throw in a monitor and a pair of boots as "part of the OS," then they
are part of the OS?

But that doesn't fit with some other people. For instance, if Samsung wants
to sell monitors, they might not be willing to accept Microsoft Monitors as
part of the OS just because they are bundled together.

> 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?

But what is "integrating the browser with the OS?" Just because I compile the
dlls for the browser and include them with the OS doesn't make it any more a
part of the OS than if Netscape compiled those dlls and included them with
the OS.

But that is going way off base considering what the issue is. There were
millions of Netscape users happy with the fact that they had greater
functionality and stability than IE. The time when IE took market from
Netscape was in '98 when MS wasn't even pretending it was "part of the OS."
Their bundling practice was to force hardware vendors to put only the IE icon
in the install process so that if users wanted NS they would have to go
download it.

To me, just because a vendor charges for something as part of the base OS
doesn't make it "part of the OS."

I went to try and find you some example emails for you to review, but there
are just too many for me to dig through to find ones that will say what you
are looking for. If you are really interested, go to
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_exhibits.htm
and read through. This will give you an idea of what the case was all about.
There are an awful lot of exhibits, though, so you will need some time.

> I'm not confused about the purpose of anti-trust laws (as you've
> dramatically stated twice).  The oppressed competitive vendors are

Dramatically? Was it the flair of expression? Too much emphasis? Did I use my
hands too much or something? What a load.

> 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

See, here is where you are completely wrong. A Mac is not a viable choice for
all PC customers. If the Mac was, then there would be no problem. Because I
would be typing on a Mac and so would everyone who just wanted a reprieve
from MS. I don't want to argue the point here, but I will point out that this
is the very first issue that had to be resolved before any of the other
charges could be looked at. If there was a viable alternative for consumers
to the Windows platform, then the rest of the suit would not be valid. None
of the rest applies if Windows is not a monopoly.

> 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.

Okay, from the above I can see that you have no idea of what really happened.
Please review the case at the url http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
if you are interested.

> 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

Okay, it is easy to dislike incompatible pieces. I don't like it any more
than you do. But let's suppose the only servers that existed in the world
were AS/400s. Okay? That's all there are. Would you still want IBM to be the
only compiler or editor vendor? Do you think that IBM would find as much
incentive to push the transaction per second envelope as they do today?

The problem with the Windows market is that Microsoft doesn't have that
problem. They can ship crap products and not worry that the product won't
sell. Because their customers are forced to buy them anyway. IE is the prime
example of this.

> 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.

How do you think the DoJ got the conviction in the first place? Do you have
any idea how hard it is to win a case against a billionaire defendant? Don't
you think they had to present quite a case? In a country where people get the
justice they can pay for, it is exceptional that the DoJ made it that far. Or
so I feel. Consider the fact that the last anti-trust suit against IBM was
won by IBM.

I too wish they'd won this years ago. But they didn't and MS has the money to
keep the fight going.

Jim, I am sorry if I sound disparaging or dramatic or whatever. The things
that happened, happened.

Bottom line, nothing is going to be done about it.

> -Jim

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