John said:
You have a strange idea of justice.
It's the one represented by the blindfolded lady of justice standing in
front of the court: that the case shall be judged on the merits and not who
one hates the most. And that was precisely the context of my comment.
Netscape wasn't on trial.
Netscape was a complainant and in a civil case both sides are equal and
equally under scrutiny. Neither is presumed innocent or guilty.
As for the government's case, it is a fundamental legal principle that one
cannot use the law to 'enforce' an illegality (for example, an illegal drug
supplier cannot sue his 'customer' for non payment and collect) so if
Netscape were behaving in an illegal manner the court should not 'enforce'
that illegality. So, yes, Netscape would also be 'on trial' in that context.
I presented it (below) as an "interesting" conundrum.
Some
people love to base their judgments on their feelings about the
entity instead of the facts.
And brother you should know.
Besides being corrupt, that's false.
It's 100% true and nothing you present here contradicts it.
In fact, original equipment manufacturers OEMs wanted to sell
Windows without Internet Explorer.
That was certainly Netscape's 'argument'. Whether there were actually any
OEMS crying over wanting Netscape *exclusively* is debatable.
Original Equipment Manufacturers
were forced by Microsoft to include Internet Explorer and to keep
the Internet Explorer icon on the Desktop.
They were expected to not cut and hack Microsoft's product up, yes. And no
one likes having their product mangled by OEMs.
Original Equipment
Manufacturers reluctantly did not include Netscape because
Microsoft's requirement of having to Internet browser icons on the
desktop would lead to consumer confusion, more calls for technical
help, and therefore less if any profit on each PC sold.
The argument that the user would be befuddled by two browsers was certainly
made but, frankly, as easy as it is to befuddle the average user I've never
noticed that being a problem no matter how many browsers they had. Seems a
lot of them can read, like "Internet Explorer" vs "Netscape" vs "Opera" vs
"Firefox," etc.
The chief appeals court justice asked why Microsoft didn't put
Internet explorer in the Add/Remove Programs area. Microsoft's
attorneys began by making light of the judges lack of understanding.
The judge made clear that he was dead serious. And he was right. We
all know that the browser does not have to be an integral part of
Windows
Really? "we all know?" You must have been a busy beaver surveying the
population of the entire planet for that absolute, all inclusive, declaration.
All I know is I certainly wouldn't buy one without a browser, not that I
know of any that don't come with one, and, in that context at the very
least, it's a 'necessary part' so if I were making a desktop O.S. it would
be in the design specifications. In my opinion.
(any more than Windows Media Player has to be an integral
part of Windows). I've used Windows and Internet Explorer for years
in such a way that Internet Explorer functions just like any other
program.
And I've used Netscape. And you, Mr. Post Headers Freak, should certainly
know I'm using it right now. Funny how I was never 'prevented' from doing
so by anyone, even without a law suit. Always had more than one media
player too.
Maybe Netscape Navigator was a monopoly,
There's no maybe to it. And they acted in what textbooks describe, to show
why they're 'bad', the classic monopoly manner: first offering the
product at a low price, in their case free, and then, once a commanding
market share is established, increasing the price.
but it was Microsoft's
monopoly power that was misused in order to force Netscape Navigator
out of the personal computer Internet browser market. So is it wrong
to use monopoly power to dislodge another monopoly? Yes. Holding
monopoly power is not illegal. Using monopoly power to gain another
market share is illegal.
The problem with the appeals court decision is that they don't
understand the virtue of separating the operating system from the
applications. Or maybe the prosecution didn't gear their
case that way.
I've told you a thousand times that I am not going to discuss the case with
you and my simply describing the state of affairs at that time isn't a
'defense' of anyone either.
