Fine. Let’s compare apples and apples. MS Works is indeed more comparable to AppleWorks, but where is it? I don’t use MS software, true, but I’m not totally oblivious to the software they release. There have not been any upgrades to MS Works for years. Besides, I was simply saying that for the features of Word that most people would use, there are alternatives out there that are less expensive. And I was talking about major apps, and not OSes. Or hardware, for that matter.
You’re missing my point. I am saying that people are buying MS software because MS makes it. I am questioning whether people take into consideration their software needs and the alternatives to MS products (which have been criticized for being excessively full of features and overpriced) before buying. I would say a lot people are buying MS products solely because of brand name recognition and the positive things they (perhaps mistakenly) associate with MS.
This is clearly not the point of the lawsuit or the companies that are involved. These companies were perfectly happy with their slice of their market, then Microsoft came in and squashed them using illegal tactics…
Sure, I pay attention. I also note the quantity and quality of innovative products they turn out. They apparently have lots of research, but very little development (In the industry we call it big R, little D)
You really should do your homework. StarOffice is produced by Sun Microsystems… not your everyday “little-known company”.
But to ponder your last question… Hmmm… it’s free… it’s a car… Why wouldn’t I accept it? I’d check it out to make sure it was safe and I would consider other factors such as comfort, gas milage, image, hidden costs, etc. before I’d drive it, but if it passed all of my basic tests and it got me from point A to point B - absolutely I would accept it.
Relating this back to software, some of the best software products I have were either freeware or very inexpensive shareware. Some of the worst were expensive commercial packages (including some Microsoft products).
and to answer my own question:
I thought of a couple only a few minutes after posting and I couldn’t resist answering my own question…
Nisus Writer is supposed to be a decent word processor for Windows (though I’ve never used it). Also, I think Corel now owns and sells Word Perfect… I guess Lotus 123 would be a direct competitor of Excel. There used to be a product called WingZ that was (in my opinion) better than Excel, but Microsoft drove the WingZ folks out of business and there were similar rumblings of Microsoft antitrust practices (I don’t know what the outcome of that was)… When it comes to competition, Microsoft lives by the philosophy: “The only good injun is a dead injun…”
Audrey, a few points.
You say that people buy the software ‘just because it’s MS’, I say that MS must have done something to make people behave this way. And since I seriously doubt they hipnotized millions of consumers, they must have provided products people want, and use, and therefore buy again. Yes, it’s brand name recognition, and it’s for a reason.
Now, you also mention that MS products are ‘excessively full of features’, but I happen to remember when MS put out a product without as many features as the competition (Word Perfect and Ami were both more feature rich) but MS managed to get in those features most often used, and suitable for most users. The old 80/20 rule. This was a big part of their success.
You don’t have to tell me about the quality of the stuff. I’ve been through all the headaches with the earlier software. I have had to use these tools as an end user, and support them as an engineer - I have learned various vulgar expressions aimed solely at this software, so please don’t think that I will only praise the stuff. But we are discussing the success of MS and why they have been targeted. I say that the consumer has not suffered, but rather benefitted from MS in general, and their competitors did not have the same skill as MS in marketing. Plenty of better technology, but no one who has put it all together as well, and sold it as well.
I know many people dislike the company, but they did nothing other than compete, win, and then get punishe for it.
Another analogy (I know, we’ve done these to death). Let’s say that you invent a product that helps shoppers when they are at the mall. You set up a little store in the only mall in town. It’s a product that people like, so it does well. Now the mall owners recognize the success of your product and they decide that they want a piece of the action. They start building a nearly identical product - just different enough not to violate any trademarks, copyrights, or patents. Then they terminate your lease at the mall. You’re welcome to go sell your product out on the street, though your target audience won’t be there, so realistically your business is doomed. This is bad news for you and bad news for your customers because if you go bankrupt, they will no longer be able to get your service or your product. (I’ll try not to throw any more analogies into the mix)
You can call that competition if you like, but the US government has a different name for it.
I realize that there are some consumers who perhaps benefitted from Internet Explorer, but as a consumer who prefers Netscape, I feel that I have been hurt personally by Microsoft’s actions. Microsoft intentionally derailed Netscape’s browser and impacted their business and product development. If Microsoft had kept the playing field level, Netscape might be an even better product than it is today. If Internet Explorer had won the battle of the browsers by demonstrating superior technological prowess, then there would be no issue, but IE dominates ONLY because Windows dominates. The only reason Netscape still has as big as a marketshare as it does is because of (1) consumer loyalty and (2) it really is a better product.
I don’t hate Microsoft and I don’t hate Bill Gates. In fact, I admire them both. However, their actions were wrong; they knew they were wrong; and yet they continued to break the rules of fair trade. Sadly, if they only knew when to quit, I think they could have ‘gotten away with it’ the same way they have in the past. But, like some rude used car salesman, they kept pushing and pushing and pushing, until someone finally said “ENOUGH” and decided to push back. I have no sympathy for Microsoft, in this respect.
Very little development? Sounds like you’ve been blinded by the Sun. Have you even looked at any of Microsoft’s products since Windows 3.1?
This brings us back to what tradesilicon just said–Microsoft is merely being punished for its tremendous success. Contracts with computer manufacturers etc. aside, if Microsoft makes such bad products then why are people still buying them if so many other things are available?
Could Microsoft just happen to have really good products, the quality of which is being ignored due to the size of the company???
Joey, I think you are completely wrong about the point of Law here. I understand the point you try to make, and your analogy. But for the sake of keeping this short I’ll avoid analogies to counter yours. The fact that Microsoft can impact Netscape’s business shows that they are competing. It does not mean that because Netscape lost marketshare that MS broke the law. They ‘derailed’ the browser? A free product? Also, the 'impacted their business developement? What does this mean? If Netscape wants to develop products they are free to do so. And please don’t tell me that all the reasources of AOL are not enought to provide them the backbone they need. Please. Also, since you say Netscape has consumer loyalty, it must not be dead, hmmm?
I know that it is very easy to take the Big, Bad MS and say they were to much of a bully, but let’s really stick to what happenned, OK. Not our ‘feelings’ about underdogs, and all that. Your statement that NS Nav is a better product is opinion. I bet I’ll find just as many users who will claim the opposite (check this very MB for recent rants against Nav). So if IE was useless, it would be in the dumpster along with other bad products. But all this conversation is really away from the point. MS has won marketshare away from others. They are free to win it back. IF MS wants to make deals with PC manufacturers, and give discounts, there is NO PROBLEM with that - it is their business.
These PC manufacturers would not be making and selling 90% of the PCs if it were not for MS products to make them useable.
I can tell you from experience that the market was pushed along by MS every step of the way - not the MAC, nor DOS, nor IBM, would have done anythign to get PCs into so many homes, and corporate desktops.
Now, I happen to think that having more than one source for anything is a good idea. I don’t like the fact that only MS can sell me a copy of the OS I use, but on the other hand, it is the one I choose to use. There are ten flavors of Unix to choose from, but I just don’t want to use the damn thing. OK, I’ll not make any friends with that statement, but that’s the way it is.
How many posters here would not even be on this MB if they were not using MS products? Were thay forced?
Well, this is along enough post. Let me summerize the darn thing:
MS DID HAVE competition ever step of the way - they beat them.
Consumers benefit from the products - they are not hurt by them
Government stepped in on behalf of competition, not consumers.
The competition has been known for some pretty lousy tactics themselves. They are a bunch of cry babies, who would be better off fighting for marketshare with better strategies, and stop telling consumers that this is ‘what you should use’, and ‘this is what cmputing should be’.
That’s not exactly what I said. I’m saying that the ratio of software developers and budget to innovative new products is low. No doubt, Microsoft is putting a lot of BTUs into their software development efforts, but most of that is being spent in maintenance… keeping the relatively few software products that they do have running on the plethora of hardware implementations of the Wintel platform and re-hacking the dodgy, already-over-hacked applications that they currently sell. There are many other software companies who are much leaner and still manage to produce truely innovative, high quality software products.
Probably more than you and in greater detail, I dare say.
tradesilicon:
No, you’re still missing the point. Microsoft didn’t impact Netscape’s business by competing - they did it by coercion and sabotage. Since they are fundamentally in control of the Wintel OS market, they had that power and they used it… and now a judge has said that they misused it.
Netscape was not exactly free… then again, neither is Internet Explorer. Netscape licensed their product to businesses and organizations requiring technical support. It wasn’t a huge money maker, but it was a business. Their only recourse, after Microsoft interfered, was to sell off to a company that could incorporate the product into their business and make money off of users.
Surely you don’t think Netscape was developing this application out of pure altruism??? What about Microsoft? Just another good deed for Bill and Company? There’s a business there and surely you can see that if your product is removed from the shelves without your consent, that’s going to have an impact. Surely you can see that if you’re forced to defend your right to free trade, that has an impact. Selling the browser was not a part of Netscape’s original business plan - it was an act of desparation from a seriously crippled company.
Clever argument… If I hit you over the head with a baseball bat, you might not be dead, but it’s still against the law.
I’m trying to, but somebody keeps arguing that the issue is about small companies whining about being outpaced by large companies in a common market. That’s not the issue. The issue is that Microsoft used their position in the OS market to control their potential competitors in the browser market. Since they’ve done it in the past, there’s also the issue that they could do it again, only worse. Personally, I think the breakup is too harsh for Microsoft, but I’m not sure how you build in both control and punishment, otherwise.
Well, of course. It all depends on what we base our opinions on. The things that are important to me are (1) adherence to the HTML standards (2) adherence to the java standards and (3) stability. Netscape wins in all of these categories. Another important factor is security - Internet Explorer’s security model is very bad… in fact, most of Microsoft’s products have a weak security model, which is why there are so many viruses that attack Microsoft products.
You still don’t get it. Microsoft didn’t win anything - they marched up with a big stick and took it. I didn’t use the term ‘bully’, you did, but it’s not too far from the truth.
Actually, I think it’s the other way around. The only time Microsoft seems to do anything is if they see someone else making money in an area they’re not in. Then they simply copy it or buy it…
You guys seem to think the US government takes these anti-trust laws lightly. Do you really believe that the government who (1) benefits from Microsoft’s tax dollars (2) relies heavily on Microsoft products for it’s operation and (3) cares about how consumers are impacted by anti-trust actions are going to intervene if there’s a way they can just look the other way? The US government rarely involves themselves in these matters unless there’s a pretty clear indication that wrong-doing has occured. The judge in the case knows full well that this will be litigated and counter litigated and counter-counter litigated until the cows come home… and then some. He would not have rendered a frivolous decision that would jeopardize the position of the US government in future such law suits. Perhaps you think this is just another case of government conspiracy or incompetance… or perhaps you really don’t have a clue.
Once again, I emphasize the fact that the consumer is not hurt by the actions of MS - Netscape, and Sun, and Oracle,(not all small companies by the way) are the reasons for the case. Not the consumer. Period.
Now, if MS is found to have used illigal business practices, ie they broke our laws, they should be found guilty. But I believe the appeal will be in their favor - there is some very fuzzy logic on the points of law that I read from the links in this post. I think the government went after them for the wrong reasons, and the judge in the case will be overruled.
As for your statement that the government does not take these things lightly, I agree - it took big dollars (from lobbyists) to get this action going.
By the way, Microsoft did not march up with a big stick and take anything. They were a nothing when they started, with Word for DOS and Word for Mac, a couple of medeorce products, and they improved those products until they could hold their own. In the OS space, they had Mac OS ahead of them, and Unix. In the NOS space, Novell, Unix, SCO, and OS/2 soon after. Where is the big stick? I don’t follow your arguement.
I know that you have said they used unfair tactics, but unfair is not illegal until proven so. Now that the court has said it was illegal (I will not claim any expertise here, just my thinking) we have the appeal to turn that over.
I still say the decision (based on what I know, including info in all these threads) was wrong.
Joey–
Just because you’re a software engineer doesn’t automatically mean you understand more about what’s going on here. You don’t seem to understand how wrong the government is in this case.
I’ve looked at software long enough to be able to tell a good product from a bad one.
I’m sorry, but this is simply wrong. Just because Microsoft has provided benefits to some consumers doesn’t mean that they haven’t hurt consumers at the same time. Allow me to rehash the examples of harm that I posted to the earlier thread on this topic:
[ul]
[li]Microsoft used it’s monopoly power in the operating system market to kill Intel’s Native Signal Processing software. This software would have allowed Intel processor owners to get the maximum multimedia performance out of their CPUs. Although Microsoft implemented some of the NSP software features in Windows, they left out key capabilities of the software. As a result, they hurt Intel processor users running Windows by preventing them from getting the maximum performance out of their computers. They especially hurt Intel processor users running non-Windows software by preventing them from getting any of the benefits of the NSP software.[/li]
[li]Microsoft prevented IBM’s SmartSuite from coming to market at the same time as the Windows 95 launch, because it competed with Office.[/li]
[li]Microsoft artificially restricted users’ choices in web browsers through various contractual and technical means. Also, the forced integration of Internet Explorer hurt those consumers who have no desire or need for a web browser (such as businesses who don’t want their employees surfing the Internet).[/li]
[li]Microsoft’s desire to have an iron grip over the Windows bootup sequence prevented OEMs from customizing their machines to aid novices in setting up and using their computers, thereby harming consumers by making them harder to use. In a letter to Microsoft on this topic, Hewlett Packard stated “From the consumer perspective, we are hurting our industry and our customers.”[/li]
[li]Microsoft’s pollution of the Java standard hurt consumers by inhibiting the creation of cross platform applications.[/li]
[li]Microsoft killed DR DOS, a competitor to MS DOS, by causing spurious error messages and program termination when Windows was run on it. This hurt consumers by artificially restricting choices in the DOS-compatible OS market.[/li][/ul]
No, they marched up with a big OS monopoly and said (at least to Intel), stop writing this software or we will remove support for Intel chips from Windows.
And all the info in these threads has amounted to almost nothing, since no one is arguing the findings of fact or the findings of law, or the basis of antitrust law itself. The only argument I’ve heard against it is the above, which is mere opinion. Altair claimed that the judge was biased (and that he slept through the trial), but I’ve seen evidence of neither - legal opinions I’ve seen on the trial have stated that Jackson was overly fair, but that he was finally irritated by Microsoft’s bumbling (and lying) in the courtroom.
In case anyone’s wondering, Jackson was appointed by Reagan, and is widely regarded as one Reagan’s most conservative appointees.
C’mon. If you think Microsoft should be left alone, deal with the facts of the case. Quit wasting space making vague claims about how Microsoft has been punished for being successful, or how this is about the revenge of Microsoft’s bitter competitors. Intel was investigated for antitrust violations, and so was IBM. Microsoft isn’t unique in this case, except for how badly they blew the trial.
In fairness to Microsoft, we had another thread about Microsoft innovations, and a very knowledgeable Windows programmer named PeterB demonstrated that OLE, and later COM, was a Microsoft innovation (if only for bringing these to market first).
This is simply not true. Perhaps ‘you’, the consumer, have not been hurt (maybe you’re just ignorant of the injury), but ‘I’, the consumer, have been.
We’re not talking about when Microsoft started, we’re talking about now. By nearly any definition you care to use, Microsoft monopolizes the OS business. Their monopoly on the Windows OS was their big stick and the thing they took away was Netscape’s right to free trade on the hardware platform that Microsoft ‘owned’ the OS for.
What bizarro universe are you living in? In my world DOS came before the Mac OS and unix - and DOS was the dominant OS in the world. Then one day Microsoft decided to reinvent the wheel (excuse me, perhaps I should say re-innovate the wheel) and they produced Windows… in various flavors. By that time, a large majority of users were trapped on that hardware platform - they had little choice: IF NOT DOS THEN WINDOWS…
I doubt very seriously that the decision will be overturned.
Altair:
Hang on a sec, partner. I only pointed out my expertise as a result of your statement:
You seemed to be implying that one had to have a knowledge of computers before they could understand the reason why the judges decision was wrong. I was just pointing out that I did understand the technical implications.
That is one interpretation. An alternate interpretation is that you don’t seem to understand how wrong Microsoft was in this case.
hansel:
What was innovative about OLE? Microsoft even admits in their documentation that OLE is an extension of SQL and DBMS before that. Let’s not rewrite history.
I don’t even know what COM is, so I don’t know if that’s innovative or not… It’s really beside the point, though. I joke around about the lack of innovative products from Microsoft, but I don’t really beleive that they are without some innovation. I’m merely saying that innovation is not really their strong point.
As I recall from the thread, OLE was substrate of the drag-and-drop tricks you could do with Microsoft products, and they were basically the first with a good commercial implementation. COM is the component object model for ‘componentizing’ Windows, and predates CORBA, it’s nearest competitor, by a couple years (at least for white papers. COM basically grew out of OLE.
If you have issues with this, please read the thread I posted. PeterB makes a good case, and we both went out looking up dates.
That’s because if one actually reads and understands the findings it’s difficult (if not impossible) to argue in favor of Microsoft. Instead, everyone wants to paint this as a case of “Microsoft bashing”. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. So far, I haven’t seen anyone in this thread “bashing” Microsoft. As I said, I admire the company and their founder (Hey, I even like a few of their products). That does not blind me to the fact that the were knowingly in violation of the Sherman act, even after repeated citations from the justice department. Netscape and java were a real threat to their future OS market and Microsoft has been using their position in the current OS market to sabotage these products in hopes of preserving their position in future OS markets. It’s a brilliant strategy… unfortunately for Microsoft… it’s an illegal strategy.
Agreed. Mostly opinion. I did follow some links provided earlier in this thread by Hunsecker and Mr. Feely, and that was also what I meant by info in this thread.
OK, I’m not an attorney, and cannot debate the points of law, but check the OP - “I don’t care…I’m on Bill Gates’ side.” This thread is largely opinion, so I don’t think I’m too far off. But you are right, the law and the court ruling have not been looked at.
JoeyBlades,
OK, you would accuse me of Bizzaro existence? After crud like this? Just what makes you say that DOS was dominant anything? Was DOS running on Apple Computers? R U OK? Do you not consider the Mac a platform at all, an OS? Applications ran on Macs (with GUI) before DOS was done with diapers. Mac has been (in many peoples opinion) a superior product, H/W and S/W, up until the last few years. This history goes back for twenty years, not two.
So lessee now, big bad MS had this thing all sewn up before anyone could even get out of the gate huh? Sorry pal, you better do a little looking around before you come at me with that nonsense. I was using a Mac for Spreadsheets, Word processing, Graphics, and games, before I ever heard of DOS - yes, in '83 DOS was around, but give me a break - everyone had it and was stuck with it? Yeah. And what about TRS 80, Commodore? Hmmm.
In the business world, you could hardly find a DOS workstation, but Unix workstations were around for high-end work. So please, don’t allow yourself to run off at the mouth (ooops, I know, I do this plenty). And since you state that DOS was the dominant OS in the world, I should just stop the discussion here - you’ve shown me the limits of your world. I do not claim to know much, but ‘The World’ includes much more that the few IBM PC and Compatibles sold at that time.
Windows, for what it’s worth, was crap when first introduced (used it since first release), but had a few advantages over DOS, like drivers from many vendors, run one app without quitting another, and the GUI they copied from Apple (Xerox, whatever). But over time, really became a good OS (Alert - opinion only) because of the very comprehensive set of drivers, true multitasking, thousands of applications, and a good GUI. So, now this is all a Big Stick? What about the years of development and Marketing and Sales this took? And all the while entering new markets and beating out incumbents.
If this sounds like I’m an MS employee, I’m not and never have been. I am an end user of many products, and used to support them too. So I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with many blue screens. I’m not here to give blanket praise. I simply say their market share is earned, they have the right to compete, and you have the right to create a better/different/newer product and kick their ass in the market place. This right should be protected, but MS (OPINION) did nothing do prevent competitors - they have the right to discount their product and the right not to, selectively.
Hey, we could go round and round on this, and end up in the same place. I can agree to disagree on MS’s use of their position on the market, but I don’t think you need to tell me what Universe I live in.
Mr. Feely,
How did they prevent Intel from Implementing anything? Intel is quite a powerhouse in it’s own right, and I can give you plenty of examples of Intel trying to bully H/W manufacturers, but that’s not the point here. Intel can implement any thing they want, and often do, but MS has no obligation to put anything in their OS they don’t deem necessary - if Intel wishes to sell chips in the MS OS market, they may choose to implement features or not, based on what benefits it will bring them (lose sales, gain sales, etc.). They can choose to sell chips to apple, and compete with Motorola, but they don’t.(I don’t think?) So what? Who said that Intel has to make CPUs at all? They can just stay in the NIC and Video business if they want too. Hey, the fact that Subaru had an anti-roll back clutch and other cars did not certainly didn’t get their sales going through the roof, maybe Intel figured this feature (NSP)would not translate into real dollar benefits for them?
How? Did IBM turn over development of SmartSuite to MS?
Here’s my rub with this - although I was not pleased at the forced install of IE with some of my NT 40 tools, I am not the maker of the software - how is this different from any other software maker saying if you want to run my program you must install these libraries, and this GUI, and the following 60 megs of graphic files? IE was their tool of choice for some installs - I still had Nav running the whole time, and kept it as my default browser. And please, if a business does not want an employee to surf the net, just don’t configure the proxy settings. Let’s not go down this road.
Bull-ony! I have plenty of experience with this, and I have seen and worked on plenty of custom boot configs - the OEM who wants to can modify a simple text file and have a custom build, drivers and all, for any model they sell.
Oh, if it’s MS it’s pollution, if it’s Sun, it’s innovation. Please, there is no such thing as polluting the standard - they simply did not use the standard, but went off on their own path. I agree that it’s great for developers to have one standard to use, but this industry is hardly an example of companies adhering to standards.
Was that right after DR DOS had a routine put in to delete NTFS partitions with their version of FDISK as a default? (IIRC, run DR DOS FDISK, prompt asks you if OK to delete on start).He,he just slight joke, but it was something very close to that. Excuse me, but Didn’t Novell buy DR DOS? This was largely due to the fact the Netware used DOS to start the install, and create the first disk partition. Perhaps they were making modifications that prevented Windows from running on it? Maybe not - almost irrelevant since DR. DOS should be a product on it’s own - if they depend solely on someone else’s product to run, they are at the merci of that company. Did it offer no value, other than to be run below Windows? Why not come up with their own GUI then?
Sorry, this has been entirely too long. I’ll stay outa here and let you fire away at me, and I apologize for the long post.
You have to have some understanding of the market and the manner in which technology affects this market in order to understand why the judge’s decision was wrong. This is not the same market that was around when they broke up the Standard Oil Company; today’s market is much more dynamic. Microsoft couldn’t harm such a market. They haven’t killed any competitors (side note–Netscape was going bankrupt way before Microsoft even thought of Internet Explorer); in fact, the nature of the market–in this instance, evolving more towards the Internet–is moving focus away from Microsoft’s dominance and more towards the abilities of its competitors.
And just because something is written down as a “Legal Finding of Fact” or such doesn’t make it true or right. In this case, nearly every item written in those documents (and yes I read the things) is THE JUDGE’S OPINION.
An opinion is not justice; finding the truth of the matter is. “The truth of reality, the reality of truth. What IS will set you free.”
You’re missing the point. The debate here is about whether Microsoft’s actions harmed consumers, not whether Intel can adequately compete given Microsoft’s actions. Also, this is not a question of Intel trying to get Microsoft to include the NSP software in Windows; Intel was simply trying to release it as software running on top of Windows, just like any other application or library. And Microsoft effectively prevented them from doing this (or more specifically, from releasing any similar software) by threatening to remove support for Intel processors from Windows. This is what is known as abuse of a monopoly position. Given that the NSP software was of obvious benefit to their consumers, that it made their products more attractive, and the fact that Intel already had a beta release of the software available when they pulled it, I think it would be illogical to conclude that they did for any reason other than the Microsoft threat.
This is covered in sections 94-103 of the findings of fact, if you want more details.
No, Microsoft refused to license Windows 95 to IBM until 15 minutes before the launch of Windows 95 (contrast this to the 5.5 weeks that other OEMs got). As IBM was introducing SmartSuite at that time, this effectively prevented them from doing so for several weeks after the launch.
See sections 115-132 of the FoF.
The difference is that by doing so, Microsoft was using it’s existing monopoly in the operating systems market to acquire a monopoly in the browser market.
That was merely an example. There are a number of reasons why a business or consumer would want an operating system without a browser, and thus would be harmed by being forced to use one: it’s likely to be more stable (less code == less bugs), have lower tech support costs (fewer applications == less things for users to be confused about), take up less hard disk space, and less memory.
The issue at hand is not whether it’s technically possible to customize the bootup sequence; it is. The issue is that Microsoft used its monopoly power in the OS market to contractually prevent OEMs from doing so, and unquestionably harmed consumers in the process. See sections 202-238 of the FoF.
Pollution is a legitimate term because Microsoft’s changes undermined one of the core principles of the language: portability. But regardless, you haven’t presented any justification for how these changes didn’t hurt consumers.
Please, do us all a favor and check your facts before you go spouting off these wild accusations. The DR DOS events occured two years before the first version of Windows NT (and thus NTFS) was released. Once again, the issue at hand here is whether Microsoft harmed consumers, not what Novell or anyone else did or did not do. Microsoft included obfuscated code in Windows 3.1 that checked an irrelevant difference between MS DOS and DR DOS, and displayed a spurious error message in the latter case. It’s quite obvious that this was intentional and unnecessary, as DR DOS was reported to work fine with Windows 3.1 when this warning was disabled. Apparently Microsoft thought the same, as they just settled out of court with the current owners of DR DOS for an estimated $150-$300 million. See this article for the gory technical details.
How romantic to opine “to hell with the judge who presided over the trial at which evidence was presented and fought over according to long standing and widely accepted rules of adjudication - I believe in justice!”
Please. If you’re going to argue that there were faults with the judge’s opinion (which, had he agreed with you, I’m sure you would have considered sanctified as law), then present an argument with something to back it up. Until you do, you’re blowing hot air.
Do you have any evidence that he was asleep during the trial, or is that FUD?
This is irrelevant to Microsoft’s guilt or innocence regarding antitrust violations. The court found Microsoft guilty of being an abusive monopoly (not of being a monopoly simpliciter). The dynamism of the market doesn’t make any difference if Microsoft committed acts that were illegal under the Sherman Act.
On the other hand, you’re close to presenting an argument that the Sherman Act itself is not relevant in the current technology market: please go ahead, but don’t bother if you’re only going to repeat your conclusion.