> The real reason MS was there on trial was - da dum - that they were > price-setting the OPERATING SYSTEM prices. The argument was > that MS was a legal monopoly of operating systems and acting in > an anticompetitive fashion. Why the trial brought Netscape into the > trial at all is likely that it was a ploy to generate sympathy.
That's funny because every source I have says that the Microsoft trial started because Microsoft was accused of leveraging its Windows monopoly to win the browser war. I could provide at least a dozen cites about this, including quotes from the lawyer who convinced the DOJ to bring the suit. But I know there's no point, because you'll say that even though he said X, that doesn't prove that X is really why he did it. I'll bet you don't have one shred of evidence to support the claim that the trial wasn't primarily motivated by this alleged use of leverage. > It's still an open and shut case that MS is a monopoly of PC > operating system software. That's why they are currently regulated > by the EC in Europe. It's why the trial found them to be a monopoly. > Forcing them to "untie" the browser from the OS was a remedy that > was dreamed up - but, it really didn't answer the root problem > of removing their dominance in the OS market. Why is that a problem exactly? > Either way that MS would have responded to the assertion that the > IE push was to protect windows would have fucked them further. It's > a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. Please explain how responding "we gave IE away so we can charge for key inclusion" would have harmed Microsoft. This seems like a perfectly legitimate "give away the razor and sell the blades" approach. It provides an explanation other than protecting Windows, which is exactly what Microsoft would have watned. > If MS claims that IE's push was to protect windows, then they > are just validating the opposition's thesis that a web browser > can make a computer operating system. If they deny it, then > the opposition says well then them giving away IE is illegal > dumping. This is a nonsensical argument. Selling a razor for less than cost to make money on the blades or a printer for less than cost to make money on ink is perfectly legitimate. Any argument that avoided a reference to their Windows monopoly would have been a huge plus for MS. They raised no such argument. You can argue that this could be because the secret was too valuable to risk, but you can't argue that it wouldn't have helped MS. > > The position I dispute: Microsoft pushed IE to get revenue from > > root keys who pay millions to be listed. This is perfectly legal > > and legitimate. > > > > My position: Microsoft pushed IE because they saw Java and > > Netscape as a threat to their Windows monopoly. > Wrong. MS pushed IE to get money. Evidence? Oh right, you don't have any. (Although, of course, as stated this claim is true. The question is by what mechanism this would make money, and there's no evidence at all to support Ted's view.) It is amazing that you tie such a simple issue into such a crazy conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that anyone recognized the revenue stream from root key inclusion during the browser wars. If this is true, why can't Ted find a single mention of it?! Ted is arguing not just that someone recognized this but that it actually motivated Microsoft. This despite no evidence from any source. DS _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
