boomberg bloopers

David Johnson david at
Fri Feb 16 20:12:21 UTC 2001

On Friday 16 February 2001 11:00 am, Tom Hull wrote:

>   2) It pushes the argument that Microsoft is not a monpoloy, that
>      Microsoft faces serious, threatening competition, and therefore
>      that breakup is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.

Actually, it's a very good argument. This specific case started because of 
Internet Explorer. I now have before me the choice between Netscape, Opera, 
Konqueror and Mozilla. From my position, and perhaps I've led a sheltered 
life, Netscape lost market share solely because of Netscape. They spent far 
too long coming out with an HTML-4 compliant browser, and when they did they 
released it before it was ready (catch-22).

Don't get me wrong, there's a ton of stuff that Microsoft should be held 
criminally and civilly liable for. But having too large of a market share 
does not qualify as a monopoly. And being a monopoly, by itself, is not a 
crime. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, maybe even more so, but 
the Justice Department went about this all the wrong way.

David Johnson

More information about the License-discuss mailing list