david at usermode.org
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.
More information about the License-discuss