AOL Time Warner Files Anti-Trust Suit against MS 949
ChazeFroy writes "This article at the Washington Post says that AOL Time Warner has filed a suit against Microsoft seeking damages from anti-competitive practices over the Netscape browser."
Can't say I'm surprised.
Hipocritical (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hypocritical (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess one corporate strategy is to sue people when your product can't compete in the market. Netscape chose a different path for the evolution of their product, and it appears it was the wrong one.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
As for Netscape... how are they meant to compete when Microsoft (which owns the OS) ships IE with the OS and threatens manufacturers to dump Netscape's browser or face higher OEM costs and other punitive measures? You cannot compete in a market if your competitor has systematically destroyed it.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hypocritical (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, Netscape made a huge mistake in trying to sell popular software that ran on Windows. They happened to create a market that a larger company with no scruples, and deep pockets, coveted and for that they were squashed.
I don't hear you complaining about Microsoft suing other companies trying to enter the market. (Lindows)
they have the capability to make sure that the news you see, both online and on TV, comes from a single source.
Perhaps, if you only get your news from AOL-TW's sources. They can't keep you from watching your local news, reading your local newspaper or looking for news online from a site that isn't controlled or owned by AOL.
I do share concern that AOL-TW controls too many news sources, but AOL's control of the media pales in comparison to Microsoft's control of the average computer user.
AOL isn't the nicest corporation in the world, but Microsoft deserves to be punished for their actions here. They did abuse their monopoly of the desktop to limit choice of software. Make no mistake, they should not be punished merely for having the desktop monopoly, but they are engaging in illegal pracices to maintain that monopoly and extend it. They will continue to do so to push their MSN,
This suit is one way of doing so, and I wish AOL all the best in winning it.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:3, Insightful)
Their 4.x line of browsers sucked and was already loosing market share to IE. Then MS decided to give away IE making the switch from a sucky Netscape browser (which cost money at the time) to a free MS browser that was getting better with each release was a no-brainer.
The first NS browser that was able to compete with IE 5.0 and later was NS 6, which was based on an incomplete Mozilla.
Mozilla is the future for Netscape (either open source or branded) and it was the right decision IMHO, it just came WAY TOO LATE. By the time NS/Mozilla made the decision to ditch the old NS 4.X core MS had pretty much wrapped and won the browser wars.
Now, and with equal footing I hope that the NS 6/Mozilla line can re-gain marketshare from Microsoft. AOL should ditch IE in their AOL product and replace it with Mozilla/NS, but they can't because MS won't give them the special consideration (desktop placement and all) if they do.
If the many, many millions of AOL users suddenly started using NS/Mozilla (because it was switched out by the latest AOL upgrade) the world, browser wise would shape up to be a different landscape IMHO.
Re:Hipocritical (Score:5, Informative)
The answer to your question is 5.
6 media conglomerates [thirdworldtraveler.com]own just about every major media and entertainment product in the US.
Re:Hipocritical (Score:3, Funny)
Another Link on CNN (Score:3, Redundant)
Yahoo! has the story from Reuters (Score:2, Redundant)
how does this compare... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how does this compare... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:how does this compare... (Score:3, Funny)
MS already has a judgement against them on the basis of this case - it's almost a matter of - How much can we take ol' Billy Boy for?
I kinda like it.
Re:how does this compare... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that part of the reason for the states v. MS was these type of problems (MS trying to squeeze out Netscape). And even though AOL has already had their input on the matter, I guess they still have the right to sue. Seems odd that they'd just now jump on the bandwagon, and that they could have been on it all along.
Not odd at all.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Darn it (Score:4, Funny)
If such a fund did exist, it would be skyrocketing every day of the week. Hey Vanguard, you listening?
Re:Darn it (Score:2)
But law firms do go through the ups and downs of the economy, and many have had layoffs recently. Some types of law correlate with the economy, but some run backwards to what everybody else is doing.
During recessions, corporate law departments get decimated (many fewer start-ups), bankruptcy departments surge, criminal law goes up some (the unemployed are restless), employment law departements do well (planning layoffs and the lawsuits they cause) and litigation goes down (less total investment in companies means fewer disputes, and companies in the red aren't as eager to sue other companies).
It actually would be a good time to buy now, because the economy has bottomed out so "buy low, sell high" means to buy now.
I don't know the details but.... (Score:2)
--
Garett
Re:I don't know the details but.... (Score:3, Informative)
All of these cases are civil cases.
Re:I don't know the details but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
either. However, the difference between civil law and criminal law
is that in civil law, the plaintiff can be anyone, while in criminal law,
only the government can bring the case.
Who is bringing the suit does matter.
It's called sovereignty (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a key difference between the American model and most other countries. In those countries there's one sovereign power that was originally tied to a monarch, and all of the subdivisions are mere administrative conveniences. All of the major laws (e.g., criminalizing murder or assault) are national.
In the US, each state is a sovereign power. Not only does each state implement it's "police powers" differently, the Federal government generally does *not* use police power with two exceptions. The first is serious crimes involving multiple states, the second is law enforcement on federal lands where local enforcement is undesirable (e.g., military bases, or to a smaller extent national parks).
This is why the modern crop of "conservatives" seem so... insane... to anyone with a sense of history. True conservatives would never support the federal government getting involved in small local crimes like possession of small amounts of drugs. They aren't even comfortable with the FBI being the lead agency in bank robberies, even if it's nominally because the banks are FDIC insured. (In truth, it's because the bank robbers of the 1930s fled across state borders and the feds were legitimately brought due to the interstate flight, but they decided to "streamline" the process and ended up creating a precedence.)
It's interesting to contrast this case (where the cops were charged with violating Rodney King's civil rights after acquittal in state court of other criminal charges) with Oklahoma trying to try Terry Nichols for murder because they don't think the federal life sentence is enough. They want a separate state trial solely so they can execute him.
Re:I don't know the details but.... (Score:2)
Now we have a problem. (Score:2, Redundant)
No good will come of this.
Re:Now we have a problem. (Score:2)
Re:Now we have a problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the most recent volly in the long-standing AOL/MS fight which has affected the Windows desktop, AOL's bundling, MSN's partnerships, Netscape's buy-out and many other skirmishes.
Press Release (Score:5, Redundant)
Quandry! (Score:5, Funny)
Can we axe them both, and start over with Yahoo!?
The first shot fired... (Score:2)
Pot calls kettle black... (Score:2, Funny)
Personally, AOL-TW scares me more than Microsoft; they've got that whole scary media empire thing going in addition to a large army of idiot users, whereas Microsoft only has a much smaller number of MCSEs (aka, professional dummies) to answer back with.
Re:Pot calls kettle black... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not me. Microsoft and AOL-TW have one fundamental difference- AOLTW isn't afraid to play fair. Remember that there is nothing
AOLTW has their hands dipped in just about everything. Music, TV, Movies, Magzines, Internet, All kinds of entertainment... But there's not a single market in which they hold a 90% dominance. They Play fair, and the battles that their products win, they win based on the customer view of superiority. Microsoft plays off it's 90% dominance, and tries to destroy all competition.
Re:Pot calls kettle black... (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, they probably would have the same browser market share they do now had they not integrated IE into the OS and done all that stupid OEM stuff that they did, but Bill has a god complex to feed.
AOL/TW does seem to be the more mentally sound of the two, but you wouldn't see me crying if the top execs of either were to find themselves in front of a firing squad.
Big mistake (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
IE is not better than Mozilla/Netscape. Ok, actually it's better than netscape 'cuz Netscape sucks.
But Mozilla trashes IE (mouse gestures, tabbed browsing...etc).
How come netscape 6 is so far from the beaten path of the Dragon [mozilla.org]?
poll idea! (Score:2, Funny)
How much should Microsoft pay Netscape in damages?
- $0-$99,999
- $100,000-$999,999
- $1,000,000-$9,999,999
- Bill Gates's Estate
- CowboyNeal's Life Savings
Goliath vs. Goliath (Score:4, Insightful)
I liked this quote: AOL executive John Buckley noted the court ruling and said, "This action is an attempt to get justice in this matter."
And by "justice", he means "money".
-B
Re:Goliath vs. Goliath (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fine for sports but in a court case only the laws at hand should be considered. Otherwise, in practise, only nice and likable people have access to the law. Or in other words being mean and unlikable becomes illegal because you will always lose in court.
Sure law is fundementally like this because it falls from man and some forms of sympathy are inevitable. But we don't have to encourage this behavior. Microsoft is dislikable but not because everything they do is illegal. And people tend to like to do illegal things to dislikable people; this is a major motivator for illegal activities, even among likable people. Therefore in some suits that Microsoft is involved in the law favors Microsoft, even if they are the dislikable party. In these cases I hope Microsoft wins because a society not tempered by blind justice is far more dangerous than Microsoft could ever hope to be.
Sure we can all continue to root for the popular and the likable but just hope that you never become unpopular, find yourself sued, and find people who root for the popular on the jury. I know I'm hoping this.
Re:Goliath vs. Goliath (Score:4, Insightful)
But surely in the case where the un-nice, unlikable bully actually has broken the law, it's OK to root for the people wallopping him. After all, the court said that Microsoft did engage in monopolistic behavior, the appellate court upheld that finding of fact, and AOL is suing for that breach. It seems to me that it's alright to root against MS on this, without having to say, "Nail Microsoft because I don't like them."
Re:Goliath vs. Goliath (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all this action is not brought on by the govt. It's by another corporation who got shafted by MS and now wants payback. Perfectly OK by me.
As for your point I think you must be kidding. The govt has so far done nothing except kiss MS ass. Their so-called punishment will be a joke and everyone knows it. MS came in and bitchslapped the US govt like an abused wife. The analogy is pretty good considering that their number one bitch is in the white house the number two bitch is the attorney general.
Godzilla Vs. Mothra (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, I was thinking of my favorite Godzilla movie, cause no matter who wins, you know Tokyo is going to be decimated :)
AOL/RHAT explained? (Score:3, Interesting)
interesting but a little late... (Score:4, Insightful)
"You can't literally put the market back in the competitive position it was in, so you'd have to think of a forward-looking remedy to help restore competition in the market as best as possible,"
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it. Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
I think this may be a case of too little, too late.
I agree (Score:2)
Re:interesting but a little late... (Score:2)
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it.
Sounds like a good remedy to me. I mean, isn't that what this is all about? Making MS compete on the same footing as everyone else and not undercutting competitors by including the software for free with their OS?
Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
Well if IE is so tightly integrated into Windows, I'd have to go with 'yes'. Possibly more than 30% for the average user.
-jdm
Re:interesting but a little late... (Score:3, Interesting)
As an example:
"Ok the OS will cost you 80.00. would you like a browser for for that?"
"yes"
"ok its 20.00 for the browser, you can choose from IE, netscape, opera, whatever."
I would say at least 30% of the value of XP is in the broser. MS is banking on making EVERYTHING with a browser interface. which mean you have to have a browser.
WTF, Where is the Anti-Anti-Trust Suit? (Score:2)
I wish Be would sue MS already (Score:2, Interesting)
You've got subpoena! (Score:2)
(intended as humor)
"You Got Sued!" (Score:2)
...
The Washington Post?? (Score:4, Funny)
Ah well, I knew it was too good to be true.
This is the silver lining (Score:4, Insightful)
This allows other companies large and small to launch their own suits against Microsoft and have a good shot at winning. This could end up costing Microsoft a huge amount of money and effectively curtailing their worst business practices.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, but in this case they're not asking for damages due to lost sales. What's your point?
Besides, I remember a time when Netscape wasn't free - the license allowed free use only for academic and other sundry use as defined in the EULA - everybody else had to pay (IIRC, YMMV, ROLLIN HAND
Sounds good to me... (Score:2, Insightful)
*gets some popcorn*
This should be at the least an amusing development.
I'm Massively Torn Here (Score:2, Insightful)
One one hand, everyone hates MS. They're big, ominous, and imposing. They are known, however, for making at least a few quality products.
On the other, we have AOL. Everyone also hates them. They're big, ominous, and imposing. They are known, also, for lack of quality in their products. Their demographic is much more focused and thus more easily reigned however, that being less than knowledgable net users (I use AOL by the way, so -don't- start flaming
This reminds very much, in a scary way, of shadowrun. Only we don't have a corporate court to settle this.
Let's pray Gates and Case don't really have armies like we joke they do, or else I think a whole lotta
Here's what's really going on (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's what's really going on (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.fortune.com/articles/2002/magazine/200
Re:Here's what's really going on (Score:5, Funny)
For once, there might be a silver lining to the cloud of huge legal bills.
No sympathy for AOL/Time Warner (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, what have they done with Netscape since they bought it. NOTHING, all of the improvements that have been made to it came through Mozilla not from AOL. They have not even been trying to improve Netscapes standing in the browser market.
Both of these companies are bad when it comes to what is best for the consumer. It would be nice if they could both be split up into a couple companies each.
duh (Score:2)
On the bright side... (Score:2, Funny)
With the extra money they can send CD-RWs (Score:2)
Happy/sad (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I just can't help but think this just means that AOLTW just wants a bigger share of the pie (either direct through their browser or indirect through cash judgements). If AOLTW were not perceived as nearly as evil (at least here on
So, other than putting a crack in the armour of M$, what does AOLTW have to gain? Cash from a judgement (remember, M$ has about $36 Billion in the bank right now) isn't likely to mean much. AOLTW doesn't offer an OS (rumours to the contrary about acquiring RedHat ignored while proof is in the offing). MSN doesn't appear to be a threat to AOLTW. M$ is aiming to the home with the XBox (which will take years to come to any sort of fruition).
I'm not trying to be ignorant, but really, what is in this for AOLTW?
It's like Godzilla v. Mothra (Score:2)
until he wins, and you have to worry about getting trampled.
I've got a remedy (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, they'd be exempt from fixing website code that actually conforms to a published standard. Maybe the punitive damages would be to make them fix Mozilla and Konqueror so that they correctly implement the standards as well.
I'm getting really tired of having to try 3 different browsers before I can get through an online purchase.
A little bit of hypocracy there? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right. As much as I realize that AOL wants to protect it's business interests, and that going after their competition is a wise move, and that there are differences between AOL and MS's situation, this seems kinda lame.
sour grapes (Score:4, Funny)
Durnit! I'm 2 stories behind...
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
AOL is the largest ISP in the world.
AOL has the most subscribers in the world.
AOL owns Netscape.
AOL bundles IE with it's software.
huh?
What are they gonna sue for? Stupidity?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I question whether this is good for the public. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, however, I worry about things like the following:
"A judge would still have the challenge of choosing a remedy that would restore competition to the Internet browser market. Netscape has only a sliver of the Internet browser market, compared to its dominance several years ago."
One of the "suggested" remedies is to force Microsoft to not include a browser with the OS. I have to question, though, whether this would really be best for the consumer.
Remember back in the day when Windows 95 first shipped? The first thing I did upon loading 95 was to install a web browser. Usually, this meant a tedious process whereby I would use FTP to connect to ftp.netscape.com and go through several directories until I found the correct binary. This was a time-consuming and tedious process. Without a web browser, I couldn't install many of the programs I typically used, including an FTP client and WinZip (used to unpack programs back before the self-extracting
So I question whether the "stripped-down" version of Windows is a real remedy, as it causes more inconvenience to consumers that way. Rather, I'd like to see Internet Explorer installed and a shortcut to install Netscape on the desktop, much like there are AOL shortcuts on most desktops now. That way, Netscape could be installed locally with little hassle, but there would still be a web browser in the OS for those who didn't care.
A few years ago, I was up in arms about this whole thing. Now, I don't care any more, and I have a feeling that the vast majority of users feel the same way. I like my IE6 with its Google toolbar and Web development tools ("view partial source", anyone?). I would have applauded this decision a while ago, but now I think that Microsoft should just pay AOL its due and move on. This lawsuit is about something that should have been settled years ago, and it's time to worry about
Is Windows an OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
If it is just a kernel, then Microsoft should be sued for including:
the Windows desktop
the Windows start menu
cd player
calculator
etc
I think it is ridiculous to argue that a complete OS-in-a-can like MS Windows should not include a web browser. MS have demonstrated that a browser can be used to manage local files as well as surf the web, and is a fundamental part of their integrated package.
Just because they were slow in including a web browser does not mean that they don't have the right to do it in the future.
The definition of an OS is not the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just couldn't let this one go by:
Microsoft isn't being sued for including the desktop/start menu etc. They are being sued for leveraging their monopoly on the kernel+OS+desktop into other software tools. They do have the right to include their web browser. But as a monopoly, they don't have the right to:
In my opinion, Microsoft has broken many many laws, the most aggregious being the use of exclusive licensing agreements with manufactures to lock out alternative operating systems and products.
Heck Be (may it rest in peace) offered all PC manufacturers BeOS for free if they would include it on their shipping computers. Lots of companies were "interested". Microsoft prevented this from happening by threatening/extorting the manufacturers with their illegal "licensing agreement" and in the end only one, Hitachi, took them up. Even then, Hitachi was forced to hide the partition so you had to go through a labyrinth of steps to boot into Be.
I think if any of the PC manufacturers ever grew some balls (or got desperate enough) and sued Microsoft for predatory pricing/illegal practices, they would have the best chance of all of winning a shitload of damages. Unfortunately, Microsoft would be able to drive any big manufacturer completely out of business before they could win in court.
now it makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
This actually makes a lot of sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as I dislike them, the government's lawsuit against Microsoft has always looked a little too much like the government getting nervous with MS's cash reserves. The gov't doesn't like entities it can't push around.
Re:This actually makes a lot of sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhh.... I'm nervous about MS's cash reserves. Actually... any corporation that giant (including AOLTW) should give us all pause about the amount of money they can throw at anything. I'd much rather the government have the money than MS, but I guess AOLTW will have to do (considering simply the justice-for-predatory-business-practices concept.) Until someone wakes up at the FCC that is.
Remember... Your tax money in the early 80's helped give rise to the ARPA/NSFNET. Your money blown on MS-DOS 3.3 helped give rise to Windows 3.
The gov't doesn't like entities it can't push around.
Citizens should be able to push the Government around, corporations should not.
And "free-market" (ie, battle-of-the-corner-Quik-E-Marts) concepts notwithstanding, Citzens alone can't do much to push around a trans-national corporation. Governments can.
AOL's Missing 155 Billion and the timing ... (Score:4, Informative)
According to Fortune, "Instead of adding up to the world's most valuable company, this merger has subtracted $155 billion of market cap. CEO-designate Richard Parsons promises to do the numbers a different way."
Link is at: http://www.fortune.com/articles/2002/magazine/200
One less nightmare (Score:3, Funny)
*sigh* Same old line. (Score:4, Insightful)
But netscape had a running head start in the browser market, and for a while, Microsoft was constantly playing catchup. Had netscape kept Microsoft in that position, then browser integration would never have been a viable option, because people would have been upset with microsoft if netscape failed to perform properly, or if they didn't really want IE tightly integrated with their OS. The fact that Microsoft already had the market share of the browser market by the time the integration took place makes the whole issue a non-issue after all.
Netscape lost their market because they stumbled. They got so caught up on insane stock prices and trying to be the supreme leader in the computer industry that they completely neglected to do the exact things required to achieve those goals. And they got blindsided by Microsoft. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Of course Microsoft has/had an almost inexhaustable source of capital to work with. They can throw money at a problem forever. But Netscape wasn't exactly broke. They had plenty of working capital and they had friendly business relations with other significant corporations like Sun. They had every ability to set the standards and run with it. When early implementations of IE with ineffective java support were breaking, Netscape and friends should have made the push to drag those customers to their camp, while Microsoft was behind.
And they needed to KEEP RUNNING. But they didn't. They chose to stagnate. They let Microsoft catch up, and clean up their browser, along with adding the ability to properly render buggy code so they would be the "more compatible" browser when netscape would break on poorly written HTML code. They gave Microsoft the chance to play the "embrace and extend" game and were forced to switch into playing catchup themselves. And that's a game Microsoft can play forever.
So don't cry too much for Netscape. They had their chance. And they blew it. They've done wonderful things, and I really wished they would have remained on top. But those days are gone. Crying about it now won't help them.
-Restil
Re:*sigh* Same old line. (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly don't think Netscape could have competed on quality of product alone once the fiery Red Eye in Morder... er... Redmond got wind of what they were actually doing down there in Mountain View. Give away the browser for free, get the people hooked, and then bolt it into the OS. Classic drug dealer approach!
Re:*sigh* Same old line. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no Netscape fan-boy, but how do you figure? If you had actually followed the events at the time, you'd know that the only reason Netscape "stumbled" was because Microsoft came along and put ten times more money into the development of IE while giving it away for free. Remember, Netscape was only free for non-commercial use (it was $30 otherwise).
Netscape was faced with a rival that had an order of magnitude more resources and cut off their major source of revenue for development. As a result their browser became a buggy mess as they didn't have the time to do the decent development there were doing before.
Let's be very frank here: Netscape died because they were forced out of business by anti-competitive business tactics of a monopoly power. Period. Netscape 4.x sucked because of this pressure, not in spite of it.
- j
What you seem to forget (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, suppose GM developed some revolutionary manufacturing technology (nanotech maybe) that allowed them to make industrial goods so precisely they basically never wore out, and do so at half the previous cost. They start producing cars that cost half what a Chrysler or Honda does and have 30 year warentees. This would, in short order, kill the sales of the other companies. Guess what? Not illegal.
The anti-competition lawas are around to HELP consumers, not hurt them. For example if I'm a monoply I can't tell the sotres that I sell to not to carry your product because it competes with mine (something MS did). That hurts the consumers by limiting their options unfairly. However I can go and spend $10 Billion dollars to make my product so much better than yours that people only buy mine. That is perfectly legal.
This is the real world, not preshcool. Everything is NOT fair. It is somewhat like baseball: there are rules and regulations ot keep everyone playing the same game, but there's nothing against spending tons of money to have an overwhelmingly good team.
Re:What you seem to forget (Score:3, Informative)
I think the only reason the games consoles can do it is because it's part of a viable and LEGAL business model - razor and razorblades, not an attempt to use your deeper pockets to put a rival out of business as Microsoft did to Netscape.
Re:What you seem to forget (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but there is something illegal about doing that and giving the result away if you're a monopoly.
You still don't get it; read the stories again. The laws are different for monopolies! Just because it would be legal for a non-monopoly doesn't necessarily mean it would be legal for a monopoly.
And in this case, Microsoft engaged in predatory pricing (giving the browser away). Whatever you might remember, Netscape was still charging for it's browser when Microsoft released IE for free (here's [blooberry.com] the only link I can find on short notice), so the fact that Microsoft spent all of this money and then gave the browser away made it illegal, no matter who did it. It's called predatory pricing, and Microsoft didn't invent it, they just brought it to the software world (although I'm sure others have done it there, too).
Please, if you're going to comment on whether Microsoft has broken the law, read the antitrust findings and find out exactly which laws Microsoft was convicted of breaking. Yes, convicted, not charged. They lost the antitrust suit, it was only the remedy that was sent back to the lower courts.
Learn the laws, and then make an informed post.
Re:*sigh* Same old line. (Score:3, Insightful)
What you say seems to make sense, but there's a question that shows a flaw in your argument - if Netscape couldn't afford to develop a decent, bug free browser with their resources, how is it that Opera, with less resources, has managed? How is it that Konquerer is a lot more useful and stable? Netscape has had a lot of time to get their program back together and they just haven't done it. They were stuck at 4.7 for the longest time, and it was a buggy mess. Their real problem was they didn't do a very good job on their product and they took a long time to realize they were at a developmental dead end and it was time to start over.
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you obviously weren't around then to follow the events.
Netscape stumbled on a number of issues. They were arrogant and lost the contract for AOLs browser as a result.
They were arrogant and refused to work with the W3C standards body. Netscape 4.x was especially bad because they had lost a battle with the W3C over CSS and released a product which had major kludges in it.
Articles such as this one:
http://www.wowwebdesigns.com/power_guides/worst
Detail most of the problems that Netscape caused for themselves.
"As a result their browser became a buggy mess as they didn't have the time to do the decent development there were doing before. "
But somehow Microsoft had the time. Basically you are agreeing that Netscape's problems were caused because their developers were not as good. We should punish Microsoft because they are more competent?
Since when does that promote a competitive marketplace?
the death of javascript (the REAL casualty) (Score:4, Interesting)
the technological progress of web technologies than
just the simple fact that IE is considered by most internet users to be the only acceptable browser. What the industry lost was JavaScript.
... now hear me out at least before you dismiss this post. The javascript i'm talking about isn't the cheesy mouseover-effect popup-annoyance ad-spamming tool that the industry knows today... the javascript i'm talking about is the client-side event-based windowing/navigation scripting language that the original technology could have evolved into before M$ crushed netscape and with it any chance of javascript growing past it's infancy.
Possible timeframe (Score:4, Funny)
oh well (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I believe that AOL's service sucks. Furthermore, I disagree with the whole AOL/TW thing. In my opinion, content providers and connection providers should be separate entities.
But let's ignore those comments for a moment. I feel I must applaud AOL for filing an Antitrust suit against Microsoft.
Further, although I dislike AOL, I believe it would be beneficial to the consumer if AOL makes strategic alliances with every company that competes with Microsoft. This means they wouldn't buy those companies, but the group of companies can, together, provide quality, lower-priced products and services and crush Microsoft.
Consider the recent rumors of AOL buying Red Hat. If, instead of buying, AOL made a strategic alliance with Red Hat, began providing a native Linux AOL client, and mass-mailed CDs containing a Linux distro with the client, this would give millions of AOL users a choice in operating systems, increase the amount of Linux installations out there, and decrease Microsoft's market share.
Suppose AOL and Linux distributors got together and made such alliances with other companies that produce brand-name commercial software that competes with Microsoft's products. Thousands of titles and hundreds of companies are in this position. And suppose that this large alliance now makes deals with computer manufacturers. If only one large manufacturer, like Dell or Compaq, sold PCs with preinstalled Linux and bundled brand-name software, it would heavily reduce Microsoft's market share and bring the entire software community one step closer to winning the fight against the giant squid.
But it'll probably never happen. And besides, RMS would probably commit suicide, so it's probably best, for his sake, that this never happens.xxxxx O xxxxx H xxxxx xxxxx W xxxxx E xxxxx L xxxxx L xxxxx
Maybe this is why AOL bought NSCP? (Score:5, Insightful)
NSCP wouldn't have had the time or resources to do it, but AOL basically 'bought' a case for them to dump onto Microsoft. AOL on the other hand has the time and more than enough resources to make this a real PITA for Microsoft.
Re:Better luck (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Better luck ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am in favor of this suit. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Barf me (Score:2)
Corporations use either Outlook, Lotus Notes, or Groupwise(bleh). Most companies are moving
away from the latter and moving towards the former.
Re:Barf me (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what this AOL suit is all about. In essence their suit is saying "You were found guilty of breaking anti-trust laws. Now we want to be compensated for our loss that resulted from your illegal actions."
Re:Barf me (Score:2, Insightful)
Ditto the comments about other people competing with Microsoft too! MS is not perfect by any means, and it is obviously possible to make a better product and compete with them.
I used Netscape for a LONG time before finally switching to IE. I decided that I had been using an inferior product for no other reason than it wasn't MS. So I switched and now use the superior product, and will continue to do so until a better one comes along.
Re:Barf me (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, it's always amusing watching free software advocates (who think software should be free/beer) whine about Microsoft giving away software for free.
Alright, you win.
I'll stop whining about Microsoft making IE strongly integrated by default in its operating systems (you know, the ones that come installed by default on 90+ percent of the PCs that you find in stores?)
In particular, if Microsoft started giving away free software such as AOL 7.0 or Red Hat 7.2 or the source code to IE as part of their magnanimous gestures, then I'd be prepared to eat crow.
I'm waiting.
Good point. (Score:2)
Re:This may be a dumb comment but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sit back - get popcorn - enjoy show (Score:2)
Re:And today's date is Jan. 22, 2002 (Score:3, Insightful)
To anybody who says that Netscape should have just made a better browser and competed better: let's play a game of Monopoly! Except I'm changing the rules a little bit. I get to start with all the money I've ever won from every other game of Monopoly I've ever played (six figures by now), while you start with the standard $1500. This means that every property I land on, I can immediately buy and build hotels on, while you've got to work to earn your money.
Think this is unfair? Quit your griping, and put more attention into playing a good game! You can still beat me, it's a fair fight!
Re:Then MS can fire back... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is sad... Netscape simply sucked. (Score:5, Informative)
Once a big chunk of their revenue stream was taken away, the quality of the browser really began to suffer. Tack on the fact that M$ had some licensing agreements with many PC OEM's requiring them to NOT SHIP Netscape on PC's as well as their weird proprietary tags (not that NS didn't have a few as well) and you have a recipe for NS' demise.
Hell! M$ even courted major entertainment sites and encouraged them to develop their sites so that they could ONLY be viewed with IE for Windows! I'm a Mac user and years ago I used only Netscape and I couldn't even access the star trek website. Totally unsupported for Netscape and the lack of Mac support was just rubbing salt in the wounds.
M$ needs to pay for this reckless disregard for consumer choice and if AOL/TW wants to use their own money to fight this battle, I'm fine with that. The US government , since Bush was appointed president, has shown that they no longer have the cojones to do what is right and just.