Netscape now officially free
T.J. Weber (twister@ipmedia.net)
Matt Hucke wrote:
>
> Netscape has just announced that, effective immediately, their
> Communicator product is officially free. Moreover, the source
> code to v5.0 will be made available in March, and outside developers
> are encouraged to contribute - similar to a GPL. Their
> new "Unlimited Distribution" policy will allow ISPs to make available
> customized versions for free.
>
> Several local ISPs distribute MSIE currently, primarily for the reason
> that it's free while Netscape would have cost money. Now that both
> are free, it will be interesting to see how many will return to
> supporting Netscape (which, after all, does run on more platforms than
> its competitor).
Yay. Excellent news! I wonder how Microsoft is reacting? I'd love to
take a look at the source......I bet after it's released, there will be
numerous security bugs found. (And the potential for ISPs and other
companies to exploit some code.) Anyway ... I got some URLs to this
info:
http://home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html
http://home.netscape.com/communicator/free_faq.html
Thanks,
T.J. Weber
--
T.J. Weber | huked 0n f0niks
President, Interplanetary Media | werked four mee!
phone: 847.205.5200 |----------------------------
fax: 847.205.5201 | part time president, student,
e-mail: ad...@ipmedia.net | system administrator, and KID!
web: http://www.ipmedia.net |
Side note to that "special someone" in my life:
-----------------------------------------------------------
| "You are the epitome of everything I've ever looked for |
| in another human being." --Chasing Amy, 1997 |
-----------------------------------------------------------
dann...@dannyland.org
> Yay. Excellent news! I wonder how Microsoft is reacting? I'd love to
Microsoft is busily painting itself as a victim of overgovernment.
> take a look at the source......I bet after it's released, there will be
> numerous security bugs found. (And the potential for ISPs and other
> companies to exploit some code.) Anyway ... I got some URLs to this
> info:
> http://home.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html
> http://home.netscape.com/communicator/free_faq.html
I myself am eager to get in there and see what will be done about actually
freeing some memory from time to time, supporting a few tags closer to spec,
and other stuff.
The first mods will be;
- The complete destruction of <blink>
- Everybody's customer USER-AGENT or whatever the $var is
- ISPs putting their own little logos in place of the big 'N'
I'm hoping that Netscape will now be able to destroy MSIE, given that it's
development force has just increased by tens of thousands.
If we're lucky, maybe companies will start responding to pressure or the
threat of Microsoft by "giving it away" rather than being beaten into cruel
submission and letting Bill have the market to himself. :) I don't trust
commercial software any more anyway, if I can avoid it. But then, I'm pretty
extreme, having taught myself troff last night so I wouldn't have to find a
Windows machine to do my homework in "Word" ...
dan
--
//Dan -=- This message brought to you by djho...@uiuc.edu -=-
\\/yori -=- Information - http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward/ -=-
aiokomete -=- Our Honored Symbol deserves an Honorable Retirement
Karl Denninger
Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
That kinda makes the truth behind the people who were railing about MSIE
rather evident, doesn't it?
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Alan Miller
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
Actually, I think the argument on Microsoft is more:
"When Microsoft requires that an application be distributed by any
OEM licensed to distribute their market-dominating operating system,
and further threatens to charge more or revoke the distribution
license of anyone who attempts to install a competing application,
it's an unlawful monopoly."
ajm
--
Alan Miller \\ a...@mcs.net or a...@pobox.com
<a href="http://www.mcs.net/~ajm">AJM's WWW page</a> or
<a href="http://www.pobox.com/~ajm">AJM's WWW page (portable link)</a>
Thomas H. Ptacek
22 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0600 ka...@MCS.COM:
>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
Microsoft isn't "giving software away" in the same manner as Netscape is.
When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
armchair legal analyses to the press.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas H. Ptacek Secure Networks, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.enteract.com/~tqbf "mmm... sacrilicious"
Matt Hucke
>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
Yes. The "who" and "why" can be as important as the "what" in determining
a "Good Thing". It's similar to the difference between an ordinary
person purchasing a gun, and a convicted felon purchasing a gun -
the same action, but the history and motives make a world of difference.
--
hu...@cynico.com Cynico Network Consulting
Graveyards of Chicago: http://www.graveyards.com
Karl Meyer
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
: Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
When NetScape gives it AND the source code away it's even a better thing.
That is truly giving it away. Given the number of people who will likely
be tightening up the code and adding new features I expect it to gain a
significant share of the browser market. Since I use Linux it's pretty
much been my only choice for a decent graphical browser.
case
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
: Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
: That kinda makes the truth behind the people who were railing about MSIE
: rather evident, doesn't it?
I don't know, Karl. Are *you* running NetscapeOS and NetscapeOffice98, and
is Netscape strongarming computer makers into installing Navigator or else?
;)
: >- Everybody's customer USER-AGENT or whatever the $var is
Yeah then none of those browser check javascripts will work. Hard working
designers all over the globe will carve little effigys of you from balsa wood
and light you afire.
(i know this wasn't yours, karl but i didn't see that post :o)
James Reames
Matt Hucke wrote:
>Netscape has just announced that, effective immediately, their
>Communicator product is officially free. Moreover, the source
>code to v5.0 will be made available in March, and outside developers
>are encouraged to contribute - similar to a GPL. Their
>new "Unlimited Distribution" policy will allow ISPs to make available
>customized versions for free.
Free is a great deal for us but I wonder how much money Netscape can
make at those prices?
Regards,
James Reames
ches...@enteract.com
http://www.enteract.com/~chessman
Strange
Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@joshua.enteract.com> wrote:
: 22 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0600 ka...@MCS.COM:
: >Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
: >Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
: Microsoft isn't "giving software away" in the same manner as Netscape is.
Seriously. Had Microsoft not provably been forcing vendors to "give away"
MSIE on any new computer with Win95, or else not use Win95 at all, this
would all be another story. The problem is that MS claims the browser is
integral to their OS. As any person using an OS should know, even stuff
built into the kernel is not necessarily irreplacably part of the OS.
Certainly a browser is not irreplacable, no matter how seamless it makes
the WAN and local filesystem seem.
: When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
: arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
: armchair legal analyses to the press.
Indeed. And when MS ceases "giving" it away with a long contractual
clause, it might actually BE "giving" it away.
-M
--
Michael Brian Scher (MS683) | Anthropologist, Attorney, Part-Time Guru
str...@cultural.com | http://www.tezcat.com/~strange/
str...@uchicago.edu | str...@tezcat.com
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
Joshua Eckhardt
In article <6a8lek$kjp$1...@Mars.mcs.net>,
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
> Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful
> monopoly, but when Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>
> That kinda makes the truth behind the people who were
> railing about MSIE rather evident, doesn't it?
>
<playground>
Microsoft STARTED it! Bill hit me first!
</playground>
While I'm not a fan of fighting anti-trust practices with
anti-trust practices, you have to cut Netscape a little
slack. They are reacting, not initiating.
- josh <eckh...@mcs.net>
Jude Crouch
In chi.internet James Reames <ches...@enteract.com> wrote:
> Matt Hucke wrote:
> >Netscape has just announced that, effective immediately, their
> >Communicator product is officially free. Moreover, the source
> >code to v5.0 will be made available in March, and outside developers
> >are encouraged to contribute - similar to a GPL. Their
> >new "Unlimited Distribution" policy will allow ISPs to make available
> >customized versions for free.
> Free is a great deal for us but I wonder how much money Netscape can
> make at those prices?
Netscape used this strategy before. They intend to increase the
sales of their server products. (And it worked before.)
Both NS and MSIE are bloatware; both are based on the Mosaic
code. Availability of source code will likely make NS the
better product.
Jude
--
Jude Crouch (jcr...@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967!
Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0145 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch
Matt Hucke
In article <6a921q$n...@eve.enteract.com>,
case <ca...@NOSPAM-YOU-FUCKING-SLUTS.hellyeah.com> wrote:
>: >- Everybody's customer USER-AGENT or whatever the $var is
>Yeah then none of those browser check javascripts will work. Hard working
>designers all over the globe will carve little effigys of you from balsa wood
>and light you afire.
A mixed blessing. As you say, it's annoying for the site authors who try
to show something reasonable to each browser. We'll also see a lot of
frivolous User-Agent settings, much like the "Organization:" lines that
many use on Usenet today.
On the plus side, those sites that try to lock out people who use the
browser they don't like will now be powerless to do so. If some company
is receiving kickbacks from MS to disallow Netscape users, the Netscape
users can simply pretend to be MSIE, and all is well. *That* is a
practice that I'm glad to see nipped in the bud.
Matt Hucke
In article <34C8413B...@enteract.com>,
James Reames <ches...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Free is a great deal for us but I wonder how much money Netscape can
>make at those prices?
They claimed to be making 18% of their income from browser sales.
That is a rather large amount, but certainly they foresaw a decline,
and decided market share was more important.
Both NS and MSIE have been available in shrinkwrap versions in stores
for some time, and will continue to be there - many users will pay
$40 for the convenience of an installation CD and a "for dummies"
manual included. Sales of this product probably counted for a hefty
piece of that 18%.
They will also continue to sell a "Pro" version.
case
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
: In article <6a921q$n...@eve.enteract.com>,
: case <ca...@NOSPAM-YOU-FUCKING-SLUTS.hellyeah.com> wrote:
: On the plus side, those sites that try to lock out people who use the
: browser they don't like will now be powerless to do so. If some company
: is receiving kickbacks from MS to disallow Netscape users, the Netscape
: users can simply pretend to be MSIE, and all is well. *That* is a
: practice that I'm glad to see nipped in the bud.
After all, IE tries to be Netscape NOW so why not make Netscape use a USERAGENT
with IE 4.0 (COMPATIBLE) in the mix? I'm still upset that IE has Mozilla Blah
(Compatible) in there. Grrrr.
Karl Denninger
In article <6a8so9$l...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <6a8lek$kjp$1...@Mars.mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>
>a "Good Thing". It's similar to the difference between an ordinary
>person purchasing a gun, and a convicted felon purchasing a gun -
>the same action, but the history and motives make a world of difference.
>
Now Matt, you know damn well that Netscrape GOT its dominant position in the
browser market by GIVING AWAY their browser initially *along with a license
that allowed it to be used free forever*.
Then, the next version out, the terms magically changed to "evaluation only,
otherwise pay us".
Why? They had achieved market dominance.
This is, by the way, exactly what people said Microsoft was going to do.
The difference is, Netscape actually DID IT, and they achieved a dominant
market position. NOW, with that lock, they "give it away" again (binaries
only; source cannot be redistributed, but can be acquired by people).
If its illegal for one company to leverage a dominant market position by
giving away software (Microsoft) then it is ALSO illegal for another
to do so (Netscape).
I'm still waiting for the hue and cry from people about how UNFAIR
Netscape's action is from a competitive standpoint.
Heh, wait a second.... Netscape was one of the chief complainers to the DOJ
about Microsoft's practices - and now they're doing the SAME THING they were
bitching about, but what's worse, they actually HAVE the dominant browser
market share to go with it.
If its illegal/improper for one....
Karl Denninger
In article <6a97e8$h12$1...@mercury.mcs.net>, Alan Miller <a...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>
>"When Microsoft requires that an application be distributed by any
>OEM licensed to distribute their market-dominating operating system,
>and further threatens to charge more or revoke the distribution
>license of anyone who attempts to install a competing application,
>it's an unlawful monopoly."
>
>ajm
Uh, no.
One of Netscape's primary complaints (by Jim Barksdale) to DOJ was that
Microsoft was competing unfairly by GIVING AWAY the browser, which
represented an awful lot of intellectual capital, in an attempt to gain
market share.
Now Netscape, which HAS the market share (dominant position last time I
checked) is doing the same thing to *PROTECT* that market share.
I didn't agree with Netscape's analysis originally - but I find it HIGHLY
unethical to bitch about someone doing something, get them investigated by
the DOJ on that basis, and then turn around and do the SAME THING yourself.
remove markem n babbs
> Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)said
> If its illegal for one company to leverage a dominant market position by
> giving away software (Microsoft) then it is ALSO illegal for another
> to do so (Netscape).
Lets see MS is in the view of DOJ is guilty if voilating the consent
decree, which Netscape was not a party to. Twist it a bit more so it will
fit your view even better.
It has more to do with MS postion as the dominant OS than just a browser.
Forcing computer manufacters to install IE because it is an integral part
of the new OS (Win98).
Of course MS quality control also sucks, the release of IE 4.0 proves it.
Joshua L. Smith
In article <6aaaek$hq3$1...@mars.mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>One of Netscape's primary complaints (by Jim Barksdale) to DOJ was that
>Microsoft was competing unfairly by GIVING AWAY the browser, which
>represented an awful lot of intellectual capital, in an attempt to gain
>market share.
>
>Now Netscape, which HAS the market share (dominant position last time I
>checked) is doing the same thing to *PROTECT* that market share.
>
>I didn't agree with Netscape's analysis originally - but I find it HIGHLY
>unethical to bitch about someone doing something, get them investigated by
>the DOJ on that basis, and then turn around and do the SAME THING yourself.
>
While it may be "unethical" what Netscape did, Karl's points about the
DOJ's investigation/lawsuit are not entirely accurate. (I don't
necessarily agree that it is unethical at all, but that's not the
point.)
The DOJ sued MS for illegally using their market share in the *operating
system* to force the manufacturers into a tying arrangement regarding
IE. In this particular lawsuit by the DOJ, MS isn't in trouble for
simply giving the browser away. It's in trouble for allegedly using its
dominant position in one "market" (used a legal term) -- namely the
operating system market -- to give it an unfair competetive advantage in
the browser "market".
Simply using a dominant market position in Market "A" to get a greater
market position in Market "A" is not the problem. That's all right (in
most cases). Its using the market position in Market B, to get a greater
market position in Market A, that's very "bad" in an antitrust sense.
So, Karl appears to be comparing apples to oranges in a legal sense.
Antitrust law will almost *always* come down to defining a product's
"relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
"browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
markets. Its an important distinction to make when comparing netscape's
and microsoft's respsective actions.
Best,
Josh Smith
dann...@dannyland.org
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
> Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
When Microsoft dumps product to enter and conquer a market, it's considered
dumping.
When Netscape respond to this market pressure in kind, it's rather
predictible.
> That kinda makes the truth behind the people who were railing about MSIE
> rather evident, doesn't it?
I dunno, I prefer software that is reviewed and developed by thousands of
people, and that I can modify of my own volition, to being hamstrung by the
monopoly who really just wants my heart, mind, soul, and income.
dann...@dannyland.org
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> I didn't agree with Netscape's analysis originally - but I find it HIGHLY
> unethical to bitch about someone doing something, get them investigated by
> the DOJ on that basis, and then turn around and do the SAME THING yourself.
Well, has Microsoft stopped giving away MSIE for free?
Actually, you do have a point, as MSIE is more expensive, as it will only run
on a limited number of vendor-supplied OSes. Netscape is considerably cheaper
considering that you can run it on Free OSes.
What a mean bully Netscape is, supporting platforms it doesn't distribute ...
dann...@dannyland.org
case <ca...@NOSPAM-YOU-FUCKING-SLUTS.hellyeah.com> wrote:
> : >- Everybody's customer USER-AGENT or whatever the $var is
> Yeah then none of those browser check javascripts will work. Hard working
> designers all over the globe will carve little effigys of you from balsa wood
> and light you afire.
Fuck 'em! Those hard-working web designers push too much graphical,
java-encrusted crap in my direction anyway to be entirely useful ...
Karl Denninger
In article <6aaj8t$bbe$1...@venus.mcs.net>,
Joshua L. Smith <josl...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>In article <6aaaek$hq3$1...@mars.mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>One of Netscape's primary complaints (by Jim Barksdale) to DOJ was that
>>Microsoft was competing unfairly by GIVING AWAY the browser, which
>>represented an awful lot of intellectual capital, in an attempt to gain
>>market share.
>>
>>Now Netscape, which HAS the market share (dominant position last time I
>>checked) is doing the same thing to *PROTECT* that market share.
>>
>>unethical to bitch about someone doing something, get them investigated by
>>the DOJ on that basis, and then turn around and do the SAME THING yourself.
>>
>
>DOJ's investigation/lawsuit are not entirely accurate. (I don't
>necessarily agree that it is unethical at all, but that's not the
>point.)
>
>The DOJ sued MS for illegally using their market share in the *operating
>system* to force the manufacturers into a tying arrangement regarding
>IE. In this particular lawsuit by the DOJ, MS isn't in trouble for
>simply giving the browser away. It's in trouble for allegedly using its
>dominant position in one "market" (used a legal term) -- namely the
>operating system market -- to give it an unfair competetive advantage in
>the browser "market".
>
>Simply using a dominant market position in Market "A" to get a greater
>market position in Market "A" is not the problem. That's all right (in
>most cases). Its using the market position in Market B, to get a greater
>market position in Market A, that's very "bad" in an antitrust sense.
>
>So, Karl appears to be comparing apples to oranges in a legal sense.
>Antitrust law will almost *always* come down to defining a product's
>"relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
>"browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
>markets. Its an important distinction to make when comparing netscape's
>and microsoft's respsective actions.
>
>Best,
>Josh Smith
Not at all.
Netscape's action of giving away the software to hold a dominant market
position (which they have in browsers) is PRECISELY what they complained
about that *started* this entire mess.
I'm not talking about the (now settled) DOJ matter. I'm talking about
Netscape's carping about Microsoft GIVING AWAY IE4 - not the bundling -
that led to the DOJ investigation and activities.
Now, the same thing they were bitching about someone else doing they are in
fact doing themselves.
If you want to talk about limiting competition, the *combined* actions of
Microsoft and Netscape have basically slammed the door on competing
commercial browser development - they hold basically ALL of the existing
market for browsers.
So Netscape just *created* a zero-competition environment - an oligopoly -
when viewed as Netscape + Microsoft.
If Microsoft's "zero competition" environment on Operating Systems
is "bad", then what Netscape has done is equally serious - if not worse!
dann...@dannyland.org
>>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
> Microsoft isn't "giving software away" in the same manner as Netscape is.
> When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
> arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
> armchair legal analyses to the press.
When MS offers to give source away, I'm going to stop doing drugs.
Of course, I don't even do drugs, but then, MS will never give source away,
so I guess I'm pretty safe.
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998, Joshua L. Smith wrote:
> dominant position in one "market" (used a legal term) -- namely the
> operating system market -- to give it an unfair competetive advantage in
> the browser "market".
>
> Simply using a dominant market position in Market "A" to get a greater
> market position in Market "A" is not the problem. That's all right (in
> most cases). Its using the market position in Market B, to get a greater
> market position in Market A, that's very "bad" in an antitrust sense.
>
> So, Karl appears to be comparing apples to oranges in a legal sense.
All right, let's compare apples to apples then. Browsers in and of
themselves are insignificant, and don't make a whole lot of money for
either company (and will make none as of yesterday). Then there has to be
another goal to the whole browser war (which I think is stupid to begin
with, but don't get me started). Netscape hopes that having the prevalent
browser will give it an advantage in sales of NES. Microsoft, presumably,
hopes to have a similar advantage for IIS. Since both companies want to
use their dominance in one market (browsers) to establish a dominance in
another market (web servers), should Joe Klein be knocking them both
upside the head?
Just following your own logic.
> Antitrust law will almost *always* come down to defining a product's
> "relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
> "browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anatoly J. Delm <> University of Illinois
E-mail: de...@uiuc.edu <> at Urbana-Champaign
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* My client's a moron. That's not against the law. * - Lt. Kaffee
"A Few Good Men"
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998 dann...@dannyland.org wrote:
> What a mean bully Netscape is, supporting platforms it doesn't distribute ...
Last I checked, Microsoft is not distributing MacOS or Solaris.
Incidentally, the couldn't one argue that the Sun-Netscape deal to
distribute communicator with Solaris anti-trust, as users of Sun platforms
have absolutely no choice in OS's, and thus can't not install
Communicator?
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998, Thomas H. Ptacek wrote:
> 22 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0600 ka...@MCS.COM:
> >Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
> >Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>
> Microsoft isn't "giving software away" in the same manner as Netscape is.
From a user perspective, that is exactly what it is doing. Most companies
don't give away source code, unless they are desperate. It is equivalent
to simply giving up a copyright on a product.
> When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
> arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
> armchair legal analyses to the press.
Translation: I disagree with you, so I will nitpick and put down your
opinion without ever discussing its merits.
It is in Netscape's interest to support as many platforms as possible,
since they are only interested in selling their web server, not which
platform it runs on. Microsoft's interest in selling their own web server
have to be tempered with a desire to keep Windows as the dominant platform
in the marketplace. No, they are not not self-sacrificing cherubs;
neither is Netscape.
Strange
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: If its illegal for one company to leverage a dominant market position by
: giving away software (Microsoft) then it is ALSO illegal for another
: to do so (Netscape).
That's NOT what Microsoft did that is really inquestion. Your premise is
incorrect, though your logic would stand if it were. MS is under
investigation because it was tying a non-dominant product to a
market-dominant product.
[...]
: Heh, wait a second.... Netscape was one of the chief complainers to the DOJ
: about Microsoft's practices - and now they're doing the SAME THING they were
: bitching about, but what's worse, they actually HAVE the dominant browser
: market share to go with it.
: If its illegal/improper for one....
No, they're not tying it to another market-dominant product. The free
part is not the dominant factor.
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998 dann...@dannyland.org wrote:
> Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@joshua.enteract.com> wrote:
> > 22 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0600 ka...@MCS.COM:
> >>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
> >>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>
> > Microsoft isn't "giving software away" in the same manner as Netscape is.
>
> > When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
> > arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
> > armchair legal analyses to the press.
>
> When MS offers to give source away, I'm going to stop doing drugs.
If MS offers to give away source, *they* will have to stop doing drugs. :)
Sheesh, God forbid should someone actually want to *make a living* by
selling their code...
Strange
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: One of Netscape's primary complaints (by Jim Barksdale) to DOJ was that
: Microsoft was competing unfairly by GIVING AWAY the browser, which
: represented an awful lot of intellectual capital, in an attempt to gain
: market share.
Yes, but the DOJ did not give a rat's ass about that except that it was
tied to the OS. I.e., it was a giveaway WITH another product, a
market-dominated product, and indeed, you HAD to give it away.
If MS just gave it away on their web site, there would be no case at all.
Now the second question comes to whether bundling it with the OS, without
any pressure on vendors, on its own is enough.
But it is very incorrect to compare the two.
Strange
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: Netscape's action of giving away the software to hold a dominant market
: position (which they have in browsers) is PRECISELY what they complained
: about that *started* this entire mess.
Let me quote you, Karl: "Wrong."
The giveaway alone was not the complaint. It was the giveaway WITH THE OS
that was the basis of the complaint. Had MS given it away on its web
pages only, it would have never come to anything. Very likely Netscape
would not have complained.
Jude Crouch
In chi.internet Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> In article <6aaj8t$bbe$1...@venus.mcs.net>,
> Joshua L. Smith <josl...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> >"relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
> >"browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
> >and microsoft's respsective actions.
> >
> Not at all.
> Netscape's action of giving away the software to hold a dominant market
> position (which they have in browsers) is PRECISELY what they complained
> about that *started* this entire mess.
> I'm not talking about the (now settled) DOJ matter. I'm talking about
> Netscape's carping about Microsoft GIVING AWAY IE4 - not the bundling -
> that led to the DOJ investigation and activities.
> Now, the same thing they were bitching about someone else doing they are in
> fact doing themselves.
Now just a darned minute. DOJ decided NOT to pursue the topic
of giving away the MSIE browser, especially since they found
other activities by MS that seemed monopolistic - requiring vendors
to install MSIE and prohibiting them from installing alternate
browsers -- the bundling.
Once DOJ decided to look the other way, it was a signal to MS
and to NS that giving away the browser was alright. You are
beating a dead horse.
> If you want to talk about limiting competition, the *combined* actions of
> Microsoft and Netscape have basically slammed the door on competing
> commercial browser development - they hold basically ALL of the existing
> market for browsers.
For now. The game is not over. There is development on the
Opera browser that up to this point has not been restrained.
This is new code, not the crap from Mosaic. Now, it is true
that the users are counted in the thousands not millions, but
it has only been out of beta for a couple of weeks. So it cannot
yet be counted as a viable product. But it's installed base is
growing by the day -- and who knows?
And it IS a better browser with increased speed (I get ~3200bps
compared to MSIE and Netscape at ~2100bps) using the same modem
and connection to MCS. It is much more configurable and easier
to configure than either of the two main products. It is not
free -- it costs $35, but it has a month evaluation. And as
the saying goes, you get what you pay for. (www.operasoftware.com)
> So Netscape just *created* a zero-competition environment - an oligopoly -
> when viewed as Netscape + Microsoft.
> If Microsoft's "zero competition" environment on Operating Systems
> is "bad", then what Netscape has done is equally serious - if not worse!
Please explain.
Karl Denninger
In article <6aanm5$5ss$1...@nntp1.mcs.net>,
That is precisely what I am talking about, and Opera is the example I was
thinking of.
You now have TWO companies giving away a piece of software in order to
leverage sales of another piece of software (NES in the case of Netscape,
and IIS in the case of Microsoft).
Between these two firms, they have what amounts to a 100% lock on that
particular category of software (web browsers). Both firms are absorbing
all development and support costs through OTHER pieces of software which
are unrelated (the web server side of the equation).
What does this do to Opera's ability to MARKET software in that category?
This is STILL a tying situation - and now Netscape is engaging in it too!
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Chris Walsh
In article <6aakoi$j...@eve.enteract.com>, <dann...@dannyland.org> wrote:
>Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@joshua.enteract.com> wrote:
>> 22 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0600 ka...@MCS.COM:
>>>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>>>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>
>> Microsoft isn't "giving software away" in the same manner as Netscape is.
>
>> When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
>> arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
>> armchair legal analyses to the press.
>
>When MS offers to give source away, I'm going to stop doing drugs.
When MS gives source away, we are *all* going to NEED drugs.
--
Chris Walsh finger mac...@ece.nwu.edu
ECE Dept., Northwestern Univ. for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Evanston, IL 60208 Ph:(847) 491-8141 ICBM: 42.054551 N, 87.694331 W
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq'|dc
Strange
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: Netscape hopes that having the prevalent
: browser will give it an advantage in sales of NES. Microsoft, presumably,
: hopes to have a similar advantage for IIS. Since both companies want to
: use their dominance in one market (browsers) to establish a dominance in
: another market (web servers), should Joe Klein be knocking them both
: upside the head?
Very possibly, that will be the next antitrust action we see.
It, however, does not bear on the one presently at stake wherein, MS's
giveaway of a browser in a market-dominant product is what is being
complained of (along with some less savory exclusionary licensing
practices).
: Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
: integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
: moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
They're the government, silly. ;-)
Any one who works with OSes can tell you that "integrating browser
functionality" into an OS is little more than a euphemism for "putting the
same graphic face on the OS GUI as on the web browser" which is more or
less little more than bundling.
Strange
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: On 23 Jan 1998 dann...@dannyland.org wrote:
: > What a mean bully Netscape is, supporting platforms it doesn't distribute ...
: Last I checked, Microsoft is not distributing MacOS or Solaris.
: Incidentally, the couldn't one argue that the Sun-Netscape deal to
: distribute communicator with Solaris anti-trust, as users of Sun platforms
: have absolutely no choice in OS's, and thus can't not install
: Communicator?
Yes, that is correct. It could, indeed, result in that kind of action,
save that the "market" is not "Sun computers" but "workstations" for which
there is a broad choice of platforms and is a market in which Sun is
significant, but not utterly dominant to the tune of 80-90%. There's a
big difference. But supposing Sun controlled 75% of the workstation
market, then, yes, indeed, it could well be an antitrust issue.
It seems a lot of people in this thread think that if they can paint
Netscape as also committing anti-trust violations, then Microsoft should
be let off the hook. That's banannas, tantamount to saying that it's ok
for two companies to break the law, but not one. It's not Netscape suing
MS -- they complained, but it's the government vs. Microsoft here, not
Netscape versus them. Netscape could do any number of unscrupulous things
tomorrow, and it would not and should not undermine the case against
Microsoft. It would and should create new cases against Netscape, should
they do something naughty.
Joshua L. Smith
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980123...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu>,
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>hopes to have a similar advantage for IIS. Since both companies want to
>use their dominance in one market (browsers) to establish a dominance in
>another market (web servers), should Joe Klein be knocking them both
>upside the head?
>
>
get it straight what the *current* dispute it b/w MS and DOJ. In the
current dispute, the market definition comes down to whether you're in
the operating system market or the "browser" market. MS will try to say
that in future (perhaps current) technology, the "integrated" product
solution makes the distinction b/w "browser" and "operating sytem"
irrelevant, thus, you have *one* market.
It will be an interesting case, one that Laurence Lessig will make his
recommendations on in several months. (BTW: Karl, the suit is *not*
settled yet. The only thing that was settled yesterday was the issue of
DOJ's motion to show cause why MS should not be held in contempt of
court. DOJ and MS settled the minor issue of the 1 mill/day fine. The
antitrust issues are still outstanding).
So, getting back to the question of whether Joke Klein should be
knocking both Microsoft and Netscape upside the head for using browser
dominance to achieve dominance in server software, it goes back to a
question of "relevant market". If you can define the relevant market
narrowly, yes, MS and Netscape's behavior may not be proper. But, if you
make the "relevant market" a more broad definition, the could would
likely not find any monopolistic activity.
>> Antitrust law will almost *always* come down to defining a product's
>> "relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
>> "browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
>
>Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
>integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
>moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
>
I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) you're using the term government as
defining the DOJ and *not* using government to define the judicial
system. But, no matter: The country has laws. The antitrust laws are
(supposedly) on the books to enhance competition. Your argument (re: who
is the government to say 'no') also works against MS: Where in the
constitution does it say that MS can interpret the laws of this country?
Just because MS says (or even lots of invididuals say) an integrated
product helps consumers, that doesn't mean its true. That's why you have
the DOJ on one side, MS on the otherside, and a (hopefully) impartial
judge/jury in the middle.
On an interesting note, the Wall Street Journal reports today that the
DOJ *may* be filing an even bigger suit against MS. "Federal Prosecutors
wouldn't comment on the prospects of a new case and say they have made
no final decision. 'We have an active and continuing investigation into
several Microsoft business practices,' says Justice's antitrust chief
Joel Klein. Practices under investigation include Microsoft's
investments in new video technology, its stake in former rival Apple
Computer, Inc. and, more broadly, its effort to extend its dominance of
desktop software into new markets." (Page A1).
Should be an interesting couple of months.
Best,
Josh Smith
Alan Miller
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>From a user perspective, that is exactly what it is doing. Most companies
>don't give away source code, unless they are desperate. It is equivalent
>to simply giving up a copyright on a product.
This is wonderfully described in an article by Erik Zolan in a thread
called "Bill Gates sucks". At least, I think it's EZ, though the
attributions in the article seem a little confused unless he followed
up to his own article.
The article was also in alt.humor.best-of-usenet on May 8, 1996, with
message-id <4mrcgo$f...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>.
The most relevant section:
Eventually, a "winner" emerges, claiming market superiority.
The "loser" then places his software under General Public License
and proceeds to break the winner's kneecaps. AT&T got their
streams, but BSD Sockets is the de-facto standard. Motif "won"
the GUI wars, but xview, interviews, and xvwm took away most of
the edge. NIS was displaced by NDIS, and ISO couldn't displace
TCP/IP because it wasn't something a college could implment from
the spec.
ajm
--
Alan Miller \\ a...@mcs.net or a...@pobox.com
<a href="http://www.mcs.net/~ajm">AJM's WWW page</a> or
<a href="http://www.pobox.com/~ajm">AJM's WWW page (portable link)</a>
Alan Miller
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On 23 Jan 1998 dann...@dannyland.org wrote:
>> What a mean bully Netscape is, supporting platforms it doesn't distribute ...
>Last I checked, Microsoft is not distributing MacOS or Solaris.
>Incidentally, the couldn't one argue that the Sun-Netscape deal to
>distribute communicator with Solaris anti-trust, as users of Sun platforms
>have absolutely no choice in OS's, and thus can't not install
>Communicator?
One could probably also argue that since MSIE runs on platforms
other than Windows95 (MacOS, Unix, Windows 3.1) it's obviously
not a part of the operating system.
If it is definitely part of the Windows operating system, does that
mean that any Mac user running MSIE can say that they're running
Windows? Could Apple sell Macs as Windows boxes?
Karl Denninger
In article <6abblb$3...@eve.enteract.com>, <dann...@dannyland.org> wrote:
>Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> All right, let's compare apples to apples then. Browsers in and of
>> themselves are insignificant, and don't make a whole lot of money for
>> either company (and will make none as of yesterday). Then there has to be
>> another goal to the whole browser war (which I think is stupid to begin
>> browser will give it an advantage in sales of NES. Microsoft, presumably,
>> use their dominance in one market (browsers) to establish a dominance in
>> another market (web servers), should Joe Klein be knocking them both
>> upside the head?
>
>server, and continues to gain market share at a more rapid pace than either
>NES or IIS. Since it has open source code, it can very quickly be adapted to
>requirements of whatever popular browsers might be about.
>
>I'm not sure though, if there are any competitors in the web server market
>that gice a damn, and given that no browser currently dominates the market,
>and that the open standard of HTTP is, afaik, the only thing tying browsers
>and web servers together, it all seems like a rather dull strutting match.
Weeeeeeeelllllll.... not necessarily.
Look at the whole ActiveX/Java controversy.
Then look at ASP (Active Server Pages).
IIS does have some things you can't get elsewhere, and it would be (and is)
trivially easy to write code which works with one back-end and not another.
Both Microsoft and Netscape have put non-standard tags in their browser
software in the last couple of years; it is clear from this change in
"browser technology licensing" that both firms now feel that browsers are
impossible to make money on *directly*, so they are (and intend to) use
them to leverage sales of other products and thus make money on them
*indirectly*.
This may or may not be illegal, and I also don't know if it is "good" or
"bad" in net effect - it depends on a lot of fine details that I just don't
know enough about right now. But it certainly is exactly what people had
bitched and moaned about with regards to Microsoft's policies.
As for ISPs and the IEAK, my position is simple - if Netscape offers a kit
which is reasonably-customizable AND includes the same or higher degree of
functionality that I can get with the IEAK, I'd be an idiot not to consider
distributing it either in concert with or as a replacement to the IE package.
Any business person who is being HONEST will tell you the same thing - its a
simple matter of "bang for the (zero) buck".
However, the Microsoft Kit that many ISPs use today is a LOT more than just
the IE4 Browser. Netscape has a lot to add to the base Communicator package
before they can match the functionality (including things like a Win3.1
dialer and PPP/IP software, bundled plug-ins and tools, etc).
Netscape has a *LONG* way to go playing catch-up with that package. Right
now our CDROM has over 60MB of material on it in the IE area - its not
just browser software by any means!
Ralph W. Wallace
Well, lets go back in time and remember that Netscape was going to give the
browser away, then announce that their business model showed that they could not
make a profit unless they charged for the browser, so, they charged for version
2.0 and up. Now, since they are receiving so little money for the browser, they
have reverted back to their original model. The source code is just a bonus. Its
like selling ink jet printers, they give you the printer, but you have to buy the
ink cartridges.
Of course, it has always been free to schools and students.
Cheers,
Ralph
Karl Denninger wrote:
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
> http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
> | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
> Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
--
I am not in search of excellence, Dr. Ralph W. Wallace
I am in search of perfection. Adj. Assoc. Prof. Emeritus
USPS: Illinois Institute of Technology wal...@charlie.IIT.EDU
Dept. of Computer Science ra...@rwallace.com
201 E. Loop Road Fax#: (847 682-6010)
Wheaton, Illinois 60187 TEL#: (847 682-6030)
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Matt Hucke wrote:
> Netscape has just announced that, effective immediately, their
> Communicator product is officially free. Moreover, the source
> code to v5.0 will be made available in March, and outside developers
> are encouraged to contribute - similar to a GPL. Their
> new "Unlimited Distribution" policy will allow ISPs to make available
> customized versions for free.
Whaddya wanna bet they'll be selling a special developers' kit that is
very important to the usability of the source?
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cliff Sharp | To see why I call them SperMCI, check out their |
| WA9PDM | long-time customer at http://208.148.158.45/ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Eric E. A. Schreiber
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>Wow, when Microsoft gives software away, its an unlawful monopoly, but when
>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
Microsofts method of giving it away involved requiring hardware
manufacturers to include it on systems if they wanted to load Windows
95. And that amounts to unfair competition.
If all Microsoft had done was make it available via the Net, then it
wouldn't have been a problem. There's a difference in giving away free
desserts and forcing someone to eat a pie.
>That kinda makes the truth behind the people who were railing about MSIE
>rather evident, doesn't it?
And comments like this reveal a certain truth about the one making it,
as well.
Jerome Jahnke
Jude Crouch wrote in message <6aa0gj$40h$1...@Nntp1.mcs.net>...
>Both NS and MSIE are bloatware; both are based on the Mosaic
>code. Availability of source code will likely make NS the
>better product.
While both are huge pieces of code I don't think the current version of MSIE
is based onthe Mosiaic code, and I know that Communicator is not. I think
the interaction was Spyglass contributed the first two revs of IE for
Microsoft and at the same time MS had at least one programming team working
on it's own browser. Spyglass is pretty much out of the loop at this point.
For the browser anyway, I would bet there is still some legacy code from
Spyglass in IIS though.
Communicator was rewritten from the ground up for version one. Since
Spyglass had the rights to it they had to start with a clean slate. Granted
pretty much the orginal Mosaic team was working on it for Netscape it was
different totally different code.
Jer,
Jude Crouch
> Jer,
I'll assume that you know what your talking about. I stand
corrected.
Alan Miller
<dann...@dannyland.org> wrote:
>When Microsoft dumps product to enter and conquer a market, it's considered
>dumping.
A couple of interesting thoughts:
1) What if IE wasn't produced by MS, but by some other company that
nobody had heard of? Would giving away IE be a problem?
2) What if said company was part of a large foreign (perhaps
Japanese) software company? Would giving away IE be a problem?
Alan Miller
James Reames <ches...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Free is a great deal for us but I wonder how much money Netscape can
>make at those prices?
According to the press releases on their web site, Navigator/Communicator
revenues have been steadily declining as a percentage of their
income. I believe for fourth quarter 1997 it was something like
13%, down from 18% the quarter before.
Also, they're still charging for the Enterprise version of the
software, which apparently adds several additional features more
useful in an office environment, though they've dropped the price
on that significantly as well.
Finally, I believe they've stated that they will be incorporating
code from network developers into the "gold" version that they
maintain, which means that they should end up with a much better
browser that happens to also include extensions that work best (or
only?) with their web servers. After all, the whole point of this
is to sell more server-side and enterprise software.
dann...@dannyland.org
> All right, let's compare apples to apples then. Browsers in and of
> themselves are insignificant, and don't make a whole lot of money for
> either company (and will make none as of yesterday). Then there has to be
> another goal to the whole browser war (which I think is stupid to begin
> with, but don't get me started). Netscape hopes that having the prevalent
> browser will give it an advantage in sales of NES. Microsoft, presumably,
> hopes to have a similar advantage for IIS. Since both companies want to
> use their dominance in one market (browsers) to establish a dominance in
> another market (web servers), should Joe Klein be knocking them both
> upside the head?
The irony being, of course, that Apache is the world's most popular web
server, and continues to gain market share at a more rapid pace than either
NES or IIS. Since it has open source code, it can very quickly be adapted to
requirements of whatever popular browsers might be about.
I'm not sure though, if there are any competitors in the web server market
that gice a damn, and given that no browser currently dominates the market,
and that the open standard of HTTP is, afaik, the only thing tying browsers
and web servers together, it all seems like a rather dull strutting match.
>> Antitrust law will almost *always* come down to defining a product's
>> "relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
>> "browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
> Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
> integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
> moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
The government is a representative of the consumer.
dann...@dannyland.org
Chris Walsh <mac...@epsilon.ece.nwu.edu> wrote:
> In article <6aakoi$j...@eve.enteract.com>, <dann...@dannyland.org> wrote:
>>Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@joshua.enteract.com> wrote:
>>> 22 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0600 ka...@MCS.COM:
>>>>Netscape does it, its a "GOOD THING".
>>
>>
>>> When MS offers to give source away, allowing their code to be ported to
>>> arbitrary platforms, your argument will be valid. Until then, leave the
>>> armchair legal analyses to the press.
>>
>>When MS offers to give source away, I'm going to stop doing drugs.
> When MS gives source away, we are *all* going to NEED drugs.
To quote my boss, from earlier todsay; "I'm glad people will have the chance
to fix up Netscape, I just don't know if I want it to be me."
dann...@dannyland.org
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
[Regarding Microsoft]
> Sheesh, God forbid should someone actually want to *make a living* by
> selling their code...
Gee, the bottom line forbid someone actually wanting to *make something
useful* by writing good code and sharing with others.
The developers of Linux, *BSD and Apache don't make money selling their code,
they make money by being good at what they do, and they live a life doing
something good.
David Richards
In article <6a8cpk$8...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Netscape has just announced that, effective immediately, their
>Communicator product is officially free. Moreover, the source
>code to v5.0 will be made available in March, and outside developers
>are encouraged to contribute - similar to a GPL. Their
>new "Unlimited Distribution" policy will allow ISPs to make available
>customized versions for free.
As opposed to their earlier policy of requiring the ISP pay $10,000 for
the privilege (somewhat simplified, but that was the basic situation).
>Several local ISPs distribute MSIE currently, primarily for the reason
>that it's free while Netscape would have cost money.
MSIE isn't exactly 'free', reading their distribution contract is rather
an interesting experience- they ask for just about everything EXCEPT money.
>Now that both are free, it will be interesting to see how many will return
>to supporting Netscape (which, after all, does run on more platforms than
>its competitor).
Well, Ripco always did tell people to get Netscape, directly or from one
of the official mirror sites, but never did distribute software directly.
Netscape is going up on Ripco's web site, I don't know yet whether MSIE
will be removed.
--
David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
Proud to be "anti-spam cadre #1" and the Public Access in Chicago
5,000th least important spam-killer and Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
minor net-abuser, by the unofficial GSUA. (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Alan Miller wrote:
> 1) What if IE wasn't produced by MS, but by some other company that
> nobody had heard of? Would giving away IE be a problem?
Oh goodness, yes. If anyone but MS had tried to push ActiveX onto the
computers of the world, they would be laughed all the way to the Old
Virus' Home.
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Anatoly Delm wrote:
> Last I checked, Microsoft is not distributing MacOS or Solaris.
> Incidentally, the couldn't one argue that the Sun-Netscape deal to
> distribute communicator with Solaris anti-trust, as users of Sun platforms
> have absolutely no choice in OS's, and thus can't not install
> Communicator?
Netscape doesn't have an advantage there, considering Sun distributes
Solaris with a sendmail that acts like it was ported by Microsoft.
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Alan Miller wrote:
> One could probably also argue that since MSIE runs on platforms
> other than Windows95 (MacOS, Unix, Windows 3.1) it's obviously
> not a part of the operating system.
What's being said is slightly different than what you're implying is
untrue. I'm told that removing MSIE from newer releases of Win95 is
hazardous if done with the uninstaller, laborious and cryptic if done
manually. I'm also told that it's not 100% removable, but haven't been
able to verify that.
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Karl Denninger wrote:
> What does this do to Opera's ability to MARKET software in that category?
If half of what I read on their website is true, people will gladly pay
for Opera. After all this I may have to download and try it.
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Jude Crouch wrote:
> Both NS and MSIE are bloatware; both are based on the Mosaic
> code. Availability of source code will likely make NS the
> better product.
Who said we never agree on anything? :-)
Betcha an awful lot of NS bugs get fixed, too.
I can't wait for the OS/9 port. :-) :-) :-)
Tommy the Terrorist
The part about Netscape source code being available "like a GPL" sounds
too good to be true, to me. For instance, I'd bet a pack of marijuana
cigarettes against a pack of used chewing gum that they're not going to
authorize versions that don't use the Netscape Marketing Galleria as a
default "home page". Nonetheless, there's no sense complaining about
things that haven't happened, so let's get down to ideas - how we want
Netscape made better!
1) I want some version of Netscape past 2.0 that works on a Macinsh*t
68XXX. By "works", I mean, I want to be able to type in text to the
URL window or a comment form at more than 1 character per 3 seconds.
2) I want to be able to DISABLE animated .gif cycling, with a single
menu toggle. Surround them with funny-colored borders so that I know
they *can* cycle, and if I want I can click on the .gif and get the
menu of things to do with it, and see "animate this image" on the list.
Additionally, the messages for animating .gifs should clearly indicate
that animation is how it's wasting its time, and when the application
is not in the absolute foremost window of the computer, it should
automatically shut off the feature.
3) I want to be able to DISABLE off-site image loading [in other words,
<IMG SRC = "www.xxx.com/irrelevant.gif"> when I'm reading www.yyy.com].
This has two applications - first, I don't like to "stand up and be
counted" all the time - I'd rather be able to view a site without
having to give information to centralized counters that I was there.
Second, there are graphic artists who bitterly complain about being
linked to by third-party pages, which they regard as exploitative;
while I vehemently deny any "right" for them to censor such links
because it would be contrary to the spirit of the Web, I would at least
out of politeness prefer not to load their images by default when I
first enter the offending page.
4) I want some kind of advanced cookie control. This should allow
separate disables of TAKING cookies (as a waste of space, if you're
totally avoiding the practice) and of GIVING cookies (as a potential
privacy violation). These disables should have at least the option to
say always yes, always no, or "ask me", and might allow a feature to
exempt a list of sites you choose to name, or to say "stop asking me"
at a site you've decided to put up with.
5) I want some system set up where every time they upgrade Java (or
whatever) the new Web pages don't make the old browsers crash. At
least give us a choice to "proceed at own risk"!
6) I want "Netscape News" with SEPARATE windows for the list of
articles and the text of the post you're reading. I want it to handle
UUencode properly, to be able to mark off the articles you've read, to
operate with decent speed, to have real windows to type new posts into,
and otherwise to have features comparable with Nuntius, for example.
Such a substantially revised module should be made a separate
application, so that it doesn't have to hog the memory all the time,
but it should remain integrated with Netscape so that heavy-duty
browsing from news to Web and back is feasible.
7) I want openly configurable search and software buttons. While I
realize Netscape has a default setting, I've used Resedit to do for it
anyway, so they might as well give in to the inevitable. They can keep
their defaults and ad revenues for the great clueless masses, but it
would be nice to have a built-in option for convenient choice.
8) I want better foreign language support. With so many nationalities
around here, I've tinkered with some really kludgy ways to do what
ought to be trivial changes in character set displays. If Netscape is
putting so much stuff into some kind of public accessibility, maybe
they should consider the act of heroism of setting a public,
nonproprietary standard for universal language communications, a sort
of "ASCII II" that would allow every Web page and to specify Thai or
Cyrillic script, and for your browser to know it and tell you that you
can download it from <here> and stick it in such-and-such directory to
make it usable. (not necessarily the System Directory, considering
that some languages have MANY more than 256 characters!) Hey, I won't
even mind if the process puts you through the Netscape Galleria and a
corridor of ads while you're looking over the various fonts they have
available for the language and choosing which you'd like! Good place
for targeted ads too, I dare say.
With this beginning, I hope I've only whetted people's appetites for
the sorts of changes that might be made. Public source code and
modification - if it happens - is a very, very good thing.
Thomas H. Ptacek
24 Jan 1998 06:01:55 GMT mayday:
>they should consider the act of heroism of setting a public,
>nonproprietary standard for universal language communications, a sort
>of "ASCII II" that would allow every Web page and to specify Thai or
I don't think too many people would appreciate Netscape setting the
"ASCII2" standard, since it's already been set. I don't suppose you know
what Unicode is?
>With this beginning, I hope I've only whetted people's appetites for
>the sorts of changes that might be made. Public source code and
In all the time you spent typing this thing up, you could have shot
through at least a chapter or two of K&R2 and been on your way to learning
how to do some of this. I don't think the problem with enhancing Netscape
is the lack of ideas.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas H. Ptacek Secure Networks, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.enteract.com/~tqbf "mmm... sacrilicious"
John B. Hines
mayday (Tommy the Terrorist) wrote:
>The part about Netscape source code being available "like a GPL" sounds
>too good to be true, to me. For instance, I'd bet a pack of marijuana
>cigarettes against a pack of used chewing gum that they're not going to
>authorize versions that don't use the Netscape Marketing Galleria as a
>default "home page". Nonetheless, there's no sense complaining about
>things that haven't happened, so let's get down to ideas - how we want
>Netscape made better!
The next version of Netscape is to be released. NS in the past has said
it would be written in Java.
Jerome Jahnke
Jude Crouch wrote in message <6ab822$7c6$1...@Nntp1.mcs.net>...
>I'll assume that you know what your talking about. I stand
>corrected.
What, no yelling calling me an idiot and telling me you have a brother who
works for both Netscape AND Microsoft and he says that...
Jer,
Jerome Jahnke
Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote in message <34C98E...@megsinet.net>...
>Jude Crouch wrote:
>> Both NS and MSIE are bloatware; both are based on the Mosaic
>> code. Availability of source code will likely make NS the
>> better product.
>
>Who said we never agree on anything? :-)
>
>Betcha an awful lot of NS bugs get fixed, too.
Actually I think the benefit here will be less a question of bug fixes (god
knows both netscape and IE need them.) But increased security. The problem
of course will be that everyone who does not upgrade right away to the
secure version of Netscape runs a real risk of getting hosed by someone...
And once again time to warn all family members not to download Netscape from
anywhere but netscape.com.
>I can't wait for the OS/9 port. :-) :-) :-)
OS/9 Heck. I am gonna compile a version that runs native on my Alpha running
NT. This is the ONLY reason I am using IE right now.
Jer,
Jerome Jahnke
Alan Miller wrote in message <6abaat$bl7$1...@Mars.mcs.net>...
>If it is definitely part of the Windows operating system, does that
>mean that any Mac user running MSIE can say that they're running
>Windows? Could Apple sell Macs as Windows boxes?
Not that this really matters, but when Apple released a PowerMac a few years
back with a PC card in it they were NOT allowed to put "Intel Inside" on the
box. Even though the chip on the daughter card was a P5... Intel Inside
apparently means Intel ONLY Inside.
Jer,
Jerome Jahnke
Thomas H. Ptacek wrote in message ...
>Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:29:16 GMT j-ja...@uchicago.edu:
>>Actually I think the benefit here will be less a question of bug fixes
(god
>>knows both netscape and IE need them.) But increased security. The problem
>
>Modifications to source code that solve security problems are bug fixes.
>Innocuous bugs are also often security problems.
Hmmmmmmmmm given both Microsoft and Netscape are moving towards linking the
browser closer to the OS one would think a lack of security was planned, and
fixing them would not be considered bug fixes.
Jer,
Thomas H. Ptacek
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:29:16 GMT j-ja...@uchicago.edu:
>Actually I think the benefit here will be less a question of bug fixes (god
>knows both netscape and IE need them.) But increased security. The problem
Modifications to source code that solve security problems are bug fixes.
Innocuous bugs are also often security problems.
--
case
Tommy the Terrorist <mayday> wrote:
: 1) I want some version of Netscape past 2.0 that works on a Macinsh*t
: 68XXX. By "works", I mean, I want to be able to type in text to the
: URL window or a comment form at more than 1 character per 3 seconds.
Buy more memory. I don't see you enjoying Netscape > 2.0 on a 386 running
Windows 95, so why should a 68k Mac be any different?
A friend of mine uses Netscape 4 on an LC III (68030) and its fine for him,
in fact faster with Standalone than 3.0 was. Though he has 64 Megs of RAM.
: 2) I want to be able to DISABLE animated .gif cycling, with a single
: menu toggle. Surround them with funny-colored borders so that I know
Yeah there is a utility on MacOS thats let you do that and it would be nice
if Netscape just did it for you. Also people should make animated gifs do
the dance once and then stop. Its easy to do that.
: while I vehemently deny any "right" for them to censor such links
: because it would be contrary to the spirit of the Web, I would at least
yes the web is a bunch of freeloaders. heh.
: 5) I want some system set up where every time they upgrade Java (or
: whatever) the new Web pages don't make the old browsers crash. At
: least give us a choice to "proceed at own risk"!
Thats more of an authors fault than the browser. I really hate going
to the frontmost page of a site to sit and wait for java that sucks. 30
seconds for a glamorized animated gif makes my stomach crawl.
: 7) I want openly configurable search and software buttons. While I
: realize Netscape has a default setting, I've used Resedit to do for it
: anyway, so they might as well give in to the inevitable. They can keep
: their defaults and ad revenues for the great clueless masses, but it
: would be nice to have a built-in option for convenient choice.
Netscape under X11 has toolbar favorites where you can just drop in book
marks and have them appear in your browser as clickable thingies. That'd
be nice to see passed on to other platforms.
: of "ASCII II" that would allow every Web page and to specify Thai or
: Cyrillic script, and for your browser to know it and tell you that you
How about unicode?
: the sorts of changes that might be made. Public source code and
: modification - if it happens - is a very, very good thing.
Agreed.
Ronald Barron Yokubaitis
>
> So Netscape just *created* a zero-competition environment - an oligopoly -
> when viewed as Netscape + Microsoft.
Yes, duopoly too when viewed fron the analog cell phone model. We have
a duopoly on analog Cell networks in our area of Texas: SWBell and
GTE. They gave away free phones too.
But that was before PCS phones and a new world. I would like to know
what percentage drop in revenues the old onnointed analog duopolists
are experiencing since PCS appeared on the scene?
Anyone have any numbers?
RonY
Ronald Barron Yokubaitis | Austin|San Antonio|Houston
AB5LJ | Dallas|Fort Worth|Boerne
Texas Networking, Inc. | Georgetown|Dripping Springs
http://www.texas.net | Making 56k affordable
_.. . ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ _._
Strange
Jerome Jahnke <j-ja...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
: Hmmmmmmmmm given both Microsoft and Netscape are moving towards linking the
: browser closer to the OS one would think a lack of security was planned, and
: fixing them would not be considered bug fixes.
Right. They're called "L0pht Advisories" - HTH.
-M
--
Michael Brian Scher (MS683) | Anthropologist, Attorney, Part-Time Guru
str...@cultural.com | http://www.tezcat.com/~strange/
str...@uchicago.edu | str...@tezcat.com
Give me a compiler and a box to run it, and I can move the mail.
Karl Denninger
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.980125...@staff2.texas.net>,
Ronald Barron Yokubaitis <ro...@texas.net> wrote:
>>
>> So Netscape just *created* a zero-competition environment - an oligopoly -
>> when viewed as Netscape + Microsoft.
>
>Yes, duopoly too when viewed fron the analog cell phone model. We have
>a duopoly on analog Cell networks in our area of Texas: SWBell and
>GTE. They gave away free phones too.
>
>But that was before PCS phones and a new world. I would like to know
>what percentage drop in revenues the old onnointed analog duopolists
>are experiencing since PCS appeared on the scene?
>
>Anyone have any numbers?
>
>RonY
Don't know. But what I do know is that as soon as some of the PCS providers
have national inbound and outbound roaming at reasonable rates, I'm gone
from Cellular One.
If I didn't need the roaming capability I would have left as soon as these
systems became available - better pricing and a better all-around deal.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Strange
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
: On 23 Jan 1998, Strange wrote:
: > : Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
: > : integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
: > They're the government, silly. ;-)
: I get the humor, but the point is a serious one. It would make sense if
: this were, say, China, Singapore, or even France. In the U.S., however,
: the entire economy is based on the premise that the government doesn't get
: involved unless absolutely necessary. I wouldn't call defining what
: features an OS may have an "absolute necessity."
That's a complete strawman. The government of each state, plus the fed is
in fact heavily involved in the economy. The federal gov't can stick its
nose in where ever there is a legitimate federal interest and a commerce
issue. And they do so a lot. An ideal "free market" is not even vaguely
what we've got going here. So again, while I answered humorously to your
"who are they to intervene?" question, I meant the answer. You're railing
against a government interference in an area i nwhich they long ago
established the power to interfere. Want to change that? Fine, but
I'm not about to argue "ought" here -- I was just talking "is."
: > Any one who works with OSes can tell you that "integrating browser
: > functionality" into an OS is little more than a euphemism for "putting the
: > same graphic face on the OS GUI as on the web browser" which is more or
: > less little more than bundling.
: Not quite true. Oracle's Larry Ellison is pushing his NCs -- their whole
: raison d'etre is to be an interface to the Internet. The integration of
: IE with Windows 95 accomplishes the same thing; it allows the use of the
: same interface for both local and networked files, in essence, eliminating
: the interface difference between a document on your hard drive, and one on
: a networked machine half a world away. That's a huge change from the
: computing model used by personal computers since their inception.
You've just said "not quite true" and then argued that the whole issue is
a consistent interface, which is what I said.
: And again, I see no justifiable reason for the government to prevent this,
: other than to protect the likes of Netscape. I have nothing against
: Netscape, but it's not the job of the United States Department of Justice
: to be their nanny.
It is the job of the FTC to promote competition in the marketplace in
commerce. You may not like that, but it is their job. They may be
overstepping, but I have seen no evidence about that presented anywhere in
this thread; nor has even Microsoft argued that the case should not be
brought because it is out of the FTC's jurisdiction, only that it's not
bundling but "integrating."
Strange
: > save that the "market" is not "Sun computers" but "workstations" for which
: > there is a broad choice of platforms and is a market in which Sun is
: > significant, but not utterly dominant to the tune of 80-90%. There's a
: > big difference. But supposing Sun controlled 75% of the workstation
: > market, then, yes, indeed, it could well be an antitrust issue.
: Except for one thing: a PC user can easily uninstall his Windows OS,
: replacing it with Linux, or FreeBSD, or OS/2, or what have you. A Sun
: workstation user, afaik, can only run Sun's operating systems on it, which
: gives Sun a complete monopoly over that part of the market (albeit a small
: one).
Your facts throughout this thread have been woefully wrong, to put it
mildly. Suns can run Linux as an alternative, and Sun 4c and 4m machines
can run NetBSD and OpenBSD. Still, it's irrelevant to the discussion, as
are the existence of free alternatives for PCs, because anti-trust law
deals with market dominance, not 100% market eclipse.
: Because workstations cost so much, someone who has a Sun
: workstation cannot easily replace it with something else. So, in essence,
: Sun is using its absolute monopoly on the OS's used by the owners of its
: workstations to promote Netscape's browser. Personally, I have no problem
: with that -- but if Sun and Netscape can do it, why not Microsoft?
Because Sun and Netscape are not "doing it" (with "it" being = using
market dominance in one area to push a product in another). Your earlier
example in another post about car radios fails for another reason -- the
market for "aftermarket" radios emerged AFTER automakers were putting
OEM relabeled radios into cars. I.e., they were making a market area, not
muscling into it. The real question with MSIE was twofold - one, whether
they violated a consent decree (settled), and two, whether the manner in
which they are bundling their browser is an attempt to push a product
solely on the basis of its association with another, market-dominant one.
: > It seems a lot of people in this thread think that if they can paint
: > Netscape as also committing anti-trust violations, then Microsoft should
: > be let off the hook. That's banannas, tantamount to saying that it's ok
: > for two companies to break the law, but not one. It's not Netscape suing
: > MS -- they complained, but it's the government vs. Microsoft here, not
: Netscape complained of unfair business practices, while engaging in the
: very same practices? Wow -- the least we should do is censure them for
: hypocrisy.
Netscape is merely complaining. This is not a civil suit. Also, as I
will keep saying, the things NS did that MS also did are not what the
federal case is based on.
: Also, as far as this "breaking the law" bit -- maybe we should look for
: some victims of theis heinous crime first. If we can't find any, then let
: Microsoft, Netscape, and Sun use brass knuckles all they want. The
: consumer benefits.
In monopoly breakups the government interest is getting the situation
fixed before there's any real damage to potential victims. You may not
like it, but that's the way it is.
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998, Alan Miller wrote:
> The most relevant section:
> Eventually, a "winner" emerges, claiming market superiority.
> The "loser" then places his software under General Public License
> and proceeds to break the winner's kneecaps. AT&T got their
> streams, but BSD Sockets is the de-facto standard. Motif "won"
> the GUI wars, but xview, interviews, and xvwm took away most of
> the edge. NIS was displaced by NDIS, and ISO couldn't displace
> TCP/IP because it wasn't something a college could implment from
> the spec.
He he... Of course, this always involves "free" software going up against
very expensive software; since it's also at least as good, it's hard for a
company to compete against it. Also, since most of that stuff is marketed
to technical people, they aren't afraid to look at specs and take a
chance.
Contrast it to the situation with IE, which is already "free", and is
marketed mostly at "consumers" who want brand names. And again, even if
Netscape does succeed in making its browser the standard, the amount of
money they will get from it is equal to the worth of the lint in my left
pocket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anatoly J. Delm <> University of Illinois
E-mail: de...@uiuc.edu <> at Urbana-Champaign
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* My client's a moron. That's not against the law. * - Lt. Kaffee
"A Few Good Men"
Anatoly Delm
On 24 Jan 1998 dann...@dannyland.org wrote:
> I'm not sure though, if there are any competitors in the web server market
> that gice a damn, and given that no browser currently dominates the market,
> and that the open standard of HTTP is, afaik, the only thing tying browsers
> and web servers together, it all seems like a rather dull strutting match.
Exactly my point.
> > Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
> > integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
> > moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
>
> The government is a representative of the consumer.
??!? Assuming that the government really is representative of the people
buying software, is it plausible to think that they would rather be
*charged* for a browser?
In pursuing this action, the government is acting squarely on behalf of
Netscape. Consumers have only benefitted from the Navigator/IE battle.
If the government's only wish is to make consumers happy, they should
close their briefs and ask for a dismissal.
Anatoly Delm
On 24 Jan 1998 dann...@dannyland.org wrote:
> Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> [Regarding Microsoft]
> > Sheesh, God forbid should someone actually want to *make a living* by
> > selling their code...
>
> Gee, the bottom line forbid someone actually wanting to *make something
> useful* by writing good code and sharing with others.
I don't forbid it. In fact, as someone who would like to use code and not
pay a red cent, I encourage it. But I see nothing wrong with *selling*
software, either.
> The developers of Linux, *BSD and Apache don't make money selling their code,
> they make money by being good at what they do, and they live a life doing
> something good.
"They make money by being good at what they do"? What does that mean?
I'm pretty good at washing myself (which I do) -- will that make me money?
In order to earn money, one has to make something of value, share it with
others, and charge for that. Most of the people who contributed to the
development of Linux, etc. didn't make a dime. Some of the main
developers made a name for themselves, and now can charge for appearances,
support, books, etc. How many is that -- maybe a hundred? Now, compare
this to how many people are fed, housed, and clothed thanks to companies
like Netscape, IBM, Lotus, and, yes, Microsoft.
"Free" software is an illusion. It's a nice illusion, but it's an
illusion nonetheless.
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998, Strange wrote:
> : Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
> : integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
> : moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
>
> They're the government, silly. ;-)
I get the humor, but the point is a serious one. It would make sense if
this were, say, China, Singapore, or even France. In the U.S., however,
the entire economy is based on the premise that the government doesn't get
involved unless absolutely necessary. I wouldn't call defining what
features an OS may have an "absolute necessity."
> Any one who works with OSes can tell you that "integrating browser
> functionality" into an OS is little more than a euphemism for "putting the
> same graphic face on the OS GUI as on the web browser" which is more or
> less little more than bundling.
Not quite true. Oracle's Larry Ellison is pushing his NCs -- their whole
raison d'etre is to be an interface to the Internet. The integration of
IE with Windows 95 accomplishes the same thing; it allows the use of the
same interface for both local and networked files, in essence, eliminating
the interface difference between a document on your hard drive, and one on
a networked machine half a world away. That's a huge change from the
computing model used by personal computers since their inception.
And again, I see no justifiable reason for the government to prevent this,
other than to protect the likes of Netscape. I have nothing against
Netscape, but it's not the job of the United States Department of Justice
to be their nanny.
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998, Strange wrote:
> : Last I checked, Microsoft is not distributing MacOS or Solaris.
> : Incidentally, the couldn't one argue that the Sun-Netscape deal to
> : distribute communicator with Solaris anti-trust, as users of Sun platforms
> : have absolutely no choice in OS's, and thus can't not install
> : Communicator?
>
> Yes, that is correct. It could, indeed, result in that kind of action,
> save that the "market" is not "Sun computers" but "workstations" for which
> there is a broad choice of platforms and is a market in which Sun is
> significant, but not utterly dominant to the tune of 80-90%. There's a
> big difference. But supposing Sun controlled 75% of the workstation
> market, then, yes, indeed, it could well be an antitrust issue.
Except for one thing: a PC user can easily uninstall his Windows OS,
replacing it with Linux, or FreeBSD, or OS/2, or what have you. A Sun
workstation user, afaik, can only run Sun's operating systems on it, which
gives Sun a complete monopoly over that part of the market (albeit a small
one). Because workstations cost so much, someone who has a Sun
workstation cannot easily replace it with something else. So, in essence,
Sun is using its absolute monopoly on the OS's used by the owners of its
workstations to promote Netscape's browser. Personally, I have no problem
with that -- but if Sun and Netscape can do it, why not Microsoft?
> It seems a lot of people in this thread think that if they can paint
> Netscape as also committing anti-trust violations, then Microsoft should
> be let off the hook. That's banannas, tantamount to saying that it's ok
> for two companies to break the law, but not one. It's not Netscape suing
> MS -- they complained, but it's the government vs. Microsoft here, not
Netscape complained of unfair business practices, while engaging in the
very same practices? Wow -- the least we should do is censure them for
hypocrisy.
Also, as far as this "breaking the law" bit -- maybe we should look for
some victims of theis heinous crime first. If we can't find any, then let
Microsoft, Netscape, and Sun use brass knuckles all they want. The
consumer benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anatoly Delm
On 23 Jan 1998, Joshua L. Smith wrote:
> >> Antitrust law will almost *always* come down to defining a product's
> >> "relevant market." These days, very few people dispute that the
> >> "browser market" and the "operating system market" are different
> >
> >Ah, but that's just it. If Microsoft wants to redefine this (by
> >integrating browser functionality into Windows 98 -- forget IE 4 for a
> >moment), who is the government to say 'no'?
> >
>
> I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) you're using the term government as
> defining the DOJ and *not* using government to define the judicial
Actually, I *was* referring to all three branches of the government.
> system. But, no matter: The country has laws. The antitrust laws are
> (supposedly) on the books to enhance competition. Your argument (re: who
> is the government to say 'no') also works against MS: Where in the
> constitution does it say that MS can interpret the laws of this country?
The basic legal principle followed by all the courts of this land:
whatever is not expressly prohibited, is permitted. Afaik, there is no
law prohibiting a company from integrating two products, even if the
integration hurts the competition. Not to overuse an example, but GM is
allowed to run wires, make space for, and put in AC Delco radios into its
cars; this undoubtedly hurts the aftermarket car audio industry.
Neither the executive branch of our government (DoJ), nor the judicial
(Hon. Jackson) branch, has the right to create new law; only to interpret
and enforce existing ones. "Full faith and credit" laws stipulate that
the law must be applied to everyone equally, not singling out any
particular person or entity. Therefore, if the DoJ succeeds in
prohibiting Microsoft from integrating a browser into Windows 95/98, then,
by definition, the government has the right to tell *every* software
company what features may or may not be put into its products. This is
clearly a case of the government overstepping the boundaries of its
authority, and clashes with the precepts of a free-market economy.
> Just because MS says (or even lots of invididuals say) an integrated
> product helps consumers, that doesn't mean its true. That's why you have
Sure, but the market can decide that on its own. If people don't want
integrated browsing in their OSs, they won't buy it, or they will disable
it -- and Microsoft will end up having developed software that no one
uses. On the other hand, if they do like it, they should have the free
choice of having an integrated browser with their OS. The government
clearly does not have the right to remove choices from consumers'
consideration. Any laws that attempt this are unconstitutional and
unenforceable.
> the DOJ on one side, MS on the otherside, and a (hopefully) impartial
> judge/jury in the middle.
Since when are market question decided judicially? (I can just see the
Ford vs. Chevy lawsuit coming up... :)
> Joel Klein. Practices under investigation include Microsoft's
> investments in new video technology, its stake in former rival Apple
> Computer, Inc. and, more broadly, its effort to extend its dominance of
> desktop software into new markets." (Page A1).
Hmm... last time I checked, neither market dominance nor investments are
illegal. Then again, maybe I should pull out of the stock market ASAP.
(For the record: I own no MSFT stock.)
Respectfully,
David Richards
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980126...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu>,
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On 23 Jan 1998, Strange wrote:
>> : Last I checked, Microsoft is not distributing MacOS or Solaris.
>> : Incidentally, the couldn't one argue that the Sun-Netscape deal to
>> : distribute communicator with Solaris anti-trust, as users of Sun platforms
>> : have absolutely no choice in OS's, and thus can't not install
>> : Communicator?
>>
>> Yes, that is correct. It could, indeed, result in that kind of action,
>> save that the "market" is not "Sun computers" but "workstations" for which
>> there is a broad choice of platforms and is a market in which Sun is
>> significant, but not utterly dominant to the tune of 80-90%. There's a
>> big difference. But supposing Sun controlled 75% of the workstation
>> market, then, yes, indeed, it could well be an antitrust issue.
>
>Except for one thing: a PC user can easily uninstall his Windows OS,
>replacing it with Linux, or FreeBSD, or OS/2, or what have you. A Sun
>workstation user, afaik, can only run Sun's operating systems on it, which
Well, actually, NetBSD runs on Sun3/3x and SPARC, as will OpenBSD.
>gives Sun a complete monopoly over that part of the market (albeit a small
>one). Because workstations cost so much, someone who has a Sun
>workstation cannot easily replace it with something else. So, in essence,
>Sun is using its absolute monopoly on the OS's used by the owners of its
>workstations to promote Netscape's browser. Personally, I have no problem
>with that -- but if Sun and Netscape can do it, why not Microsoft?
Not only are there at least two other (free!) operating systems that you
can run on your Sun workstation, you can also purchase (licensed) clone
hardware from several vendors. So I could conceivably have a SPARCalike
on my desk without buying either an OS or a machine from Sun.
I'd call that about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
>> It seems a lot of people in this thread think that if they can paint
>> Netscape as also committing anti-trust violations, then Microsoft should
>> be let off the hook. That's banannas, tantamount to saying that it's ok
>> for two companies to break the law, but not one. It's not Netscape suing
>> MS -- they complained, but it's the government vs. Microsoft here, not
>
>Netscape complained of unfair business practices, while engaging in the
>very same practices? Wow -- the least we should do is censure them for
>hypocrisy.
The primary complaint by Netscape, the one that really brought the who
thing to a head wasn't the "giving away the browser", but the requirements
by Microsoft that vendors MUST include the browser with the OS, and not
allowing vendors to remove MSIE from new systems and install Netscape instead.
>Also, as far as this "breaking the law" bit -- maybe we should look for
>some victims of theis heinous crime first. If we can't find any, then let
>Microsoft, Netscape, and Sun use brass knuckles all they want. The
>consumer benefits.
Talk to any local storefront computer retailer- they're the ones that had
to abide by the Microsoft license agreement.
Anatoly Delm
On 26 Jan 1998, David Richards wrote:
> >Except for one thing: a PC user can easily uninstall his Windows OS,
> >replacing it with Linux, or FreeBSD, or OS/2, or what have you. A Sun
> >workstation user, afaik, can only run Sun's operating systems on it, which
>
> Well, actually, NetBSD runs on Sun3/3x and SPARC, as will OpenBSD.
Ah, I stand corrected. (hence "afaik")
> Not only are there at least two other (free!) operating systems that you
> can run on your Sun workstation, you can also purchase (licensed) clone
> hardware from several vendors. So I could conceivably have a SPARCalike
> on my desk without buying either an OS or a machine from Sun.
I am aware that there are Sparc-compatible workstations out there (i.e.
Fujitsu's HAL). That's not the issue. What I didn't know was, that Sparc
machines run any OSs other than SunOS or Solaris.
> I'd call that about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
Well, then -- there are virtually thousands of Intel-compatible systems,
both in terms of processors (AMD, Cyrix, IBM) and other hardware. These
configurations run a veritable cornucopia (always wanted to say that) of
operating systems, including Windows, OS/2, Linux, BSD, NextStep, Plan 9,
etc. Yet people keep claiming that Intel and Microsoft have a "monopoly."
If the logic holds for Sun, it certainly holds for Wintel.
> The primary complaint by Netscape, the one that really brought the who
> thing to a head wasn't the "giving away the browser", but the requirements
> by Microsoft that vendors MUST include the browser with the OS, and not
> allowing vendors to remove MSIE from new systems and install Netscape instead.
Perhaps not, but MS wasn't charging extra for the browser, and there was
nothing -- NOTHING -- that said that Netscape couldn't be installed in
addition to MSIE. Furthermore, as someone who has that very configuration
on his machine working perfectly, I can tell you that there are no
technical conflicts in that setup, either. So, in essence, Microsoft's
"crime" boils down to making all vendors give its browser away with its OS
at no extra charge.
> >Also, as far as this "breaking the law" bit -- maybe we should look for
> >some victims of theis heinous crime first. If we can't find any, then let
>
> Talk to any local storefront computer retailer- they're the ones that had
> to abide by the Microsoft license agreement.
And this hurt them.. how? Yes, they had to abide by the Microsoft license
agreement, and put IE on their hardware along with Windows 95. Again, so
what? This didn't consume any extra money or resources, and nothing
prevented this store from
a). Installing Navigator in addition to MSIE
b). Not licensing Windows 95, but rather installing a "boxed" retail
version on the hardware.
c). Doing all of the above.
Explain to me how this store, or the consumer, was "victimized."
Anatoly Delm
On 26 Jan 1998, Strange wrote:
> : Except for one thing: a PC user can easily uninstall his Windows OS,
> : replacing it with Linux, or FreeBSD, or OS/2, or what have you. A Sun
> : workstation user, afaik, can only run Sun's operating systems on it, which
> : gives Sun a complete monopoly over that part of the market (albeit a small
> : one).
>
> Your facts throughout this thread have been woefully wrong, to put it
> mildly. Suns can run Linux as an alternative, and Sun 4c and 4m machines
This is where I get to nitpick. My paragraph above is factually true,
provided that you notice the "afaik." As far as I knew, there were no
altenatives to Solaris -- which is what I said. As I said before, I stand
corrected on this.
> can run NetBSD and OpenBSD. Still, it's irrelevant to the discussion, as
> are the existence of free alternatives for PCs, because anti-trust law
> deals with market dominance, not 100% market eclipse.
As a matter of fact, that is exactly what antitrust laws are supposed to
deal with. A monopoly, by its very definition, is 100% control of the
market. Anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent companies from merging or
cooperating to control the market (the definition of a "trust") -- not to
prevent a large company from outmaneuvering a small one.
> : Because workstations cost so much, someone who has a Sun
> : workstation cannot easily replace it with something else. So, in essence,
> : Sun is using its absolute monopoly on the OS's used by the owners of its
> : workstations to promote Netscape's browser. Personally, I have no problem
> : with that -- but if Sun and Netscape can do it, why not Microsoft?
>
> Because Sun and Netscape are not "doing it" (with "it" being = using
> market dominance in one area to push a product in another). Your earlier
They aren't? Solaris certainly has a "dominance" on the Sparc workstation
platform -- are you telling me that Netscape didn't sign on with them for
that reason? If Microsoft must stick to distributing its browser off its
web site, why does Netscape get to do something different?
> example in another post about car radios fails for another reason -- the
> market for "aftermarket" radios emerged AFTER automakers were putting
> OEM relabeled radios into cars. I.e., they were making a market area, not
I fail to see how this is relevant. GM has its own electronics division,
AC Delco, which puts radios into cars; essentially the consumer does not
have a choice here, and is forced to buy a radio when he buys the car.
This puts aftermarket manufacturers and installers at a disadvantage; even
if their product is superior, the customer is discouraged from buying it,
because he already has a radio that he will have to throw away. The
question of "who came first" is unimportant -- what's relevant is the
current situation. According to your logic, GM should leave the space for
the radio vacant, since it can't use its dominance in one market -- cars
-- to sell another product (stereos).
The reason GM is allowed to do this (and ought to be) is because they
designate the radio to be a part of the car. A consumer should not expect
to have a choice of axles, struts, or door frames for a given model, and
neither is he expected to have a choice of manufacturers for the sound
system. Even though the radio is not necessary for the car to function,
since the car is made by GM, GM gets to say what the car is, and what it
ain't. If the consumer wishes to change the radio after purchase, he is
welcome to do so (likewise for struts).
The same logic applies to IE and Windows 95. Microsoft has said that its
operating systems should have integrated web-browsing capabilities; as
such, IE is designated a part of Windows. Since Windows is a Microsoft
product, it stands to reason that Microsoft should be able to say what is
and isn't Windows. (No, this is not a consumer decision. The consumer can
accept or reject it, but the consumer cannot micromanage designs. Hence
even the "government as a representative of the consumer" argument doesn't
wash.) By the same token, if a manufacturer has agreed to license Windows
and sell it under that brand name, Microsoft should have the right to
determine the look-and-feel of the product, including whether or not a
certain icon appears on the desktop. Just because they settled the matter
doesn't mean that the DoJ was right.
The licensees were permitted to install Navigator (or anything else); they
were just not permitted to remove IE. If the consumer wishes to remove
IE, he can do so after purchase. Going back to our analogy, it is as if
you could remove the AC Delco stereo and replace it with a Pioneer, or
even keep the two side-by-side. The point is, the consumer, not the
Department of Justice, decides.
An interesting question would be then, what's to prevent Microsoft by
crushing all of its competition by including with its operating systems
Office, Encarta, IIS, SNA, Bob, Flight Simulator, etc.? This is something
everyone in the software industry seems to fear. Well, the answer is,
nothing, except economics. If Microsoft started selling $500's worth of
software for $90, they wouldn't be in business very long. If the OS price
jumped up to $500, consumers would look elsewhere. Legally, however, I
see no basis for prosecution here.
> : Netscape complained of unfair business practices, while engaging in the
> : very same practices? Wow -- the least we should do is censure them for
> : hypocrisy.
>
> Netscape is merely complaining. This is not a civil suit. Also, as I
> will keep saying, the things NS did that MS also did are not what the
> federal case is based on.
But someone should at least make a note of the fact that Netscape is not
just an innocent victim here; it is merely getting a taste of its own
medicine. And again, I fail to see why Microsoft should be singled out in
this fashion. If your logic is correct, the government should prosecute
Netscape as vigorously as Microsoft. (say, for pushing its inferior email
and news-readers, as well as CoolTalk, by using its overwhelming market
share in browsers)
> In monopoly breakups the government interest is getting the situation
> fixed before there's any real damage to potential victims. You may not
> like it, but that's the way it is.
There is no monopoly here. None. Consumers have a choice in hardware
platforms, operating systems, and browsers. There are thousands of
software companies out there. The fact that Microsoft is the favorite
amongst the consumers doesn't make it a monopoly any more than Nike,
Levis, Coke, or Kraft. The government does not need to get involved,
since the consumer is not being hurt now, and is not likely to be hurt in
the future.
Alan Miller
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps not, but MS wasn't charging extra for the browser, and there was
>nothing -- NOTHING -- that said that Netscape couldn't be installed in
>addition to MSIE. Furthermore, as someone who has that very configuration
>on his machine working perfectly, I can tell you that there are no
>technical conflicts in that setup, either. So, in essence, Microsoft's
>"crime" boils down to making all vendors give its browser away with its OS
>at no extra charge.
Except I seem to recall something about a manufacturer starting to
do just that and being threatened with loss of their license to
install Win95. It might even have been Compaq, though I'm not
certain about that.
And in the past, even if you bought a system with, say, Linux on
it, you paid for Win95 if the manufacturer was licensed to OEM it.
That meant that the only way to get a system without paying for
Windows 95 was to buy all the pieces and put it together yourself.
That's because at one point MS's agreements with vendors all required
the vendors to pay MS for every system they sold that _could_ run
Win95 (or DOS, etc.). I believe that was part of the earlier MS
legal problems, and IIRC Zenith actually came out with a system
that was _not_ capable of running one of those OSes specifically
because of this.
ajm
--
Alan Miller \\ a...@mcs.net or a...@pobox.com
<a href="http://www.mcs.net/~ajm">AJM's WWW page</a> or
<a href="http://www.pobox.com/~ajm">AJM's WWW page (portable link)</a>
Alan Miller
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>On 26 Jan 1998, Strange wrote:
>> Because Sun and Netscape are not "doing it" (with "it" being = using
>> market dominance in one area to push a product in another). Your earlier
>
>They aren't? Solaris certainly has a "dominance" on the Sparc workstation
>platform -- are you telling me that Netscape didn't sign on with them for
>that reason? If Microsoft must stick to distributing its browser off its
>web site, why does Netscape get to do something different?
Right, but that's like saying Ford has a "dominance" in the Ford
replacement body panel market. Sun is not the only workstation
vendor out there, and Sparc is not a particularly dominant chipset
in the workstation arena. Intel is a very dominant chipset in the
PC arena, and MS is a very dominant OS in the PC arena.
Anatoly Delm
On 26 Jan 1998, Alan Miller wrote:
> >nothing -- NOTHING -- that said that Netscape couldn't be installed in
> >addition to MSIE. Furthermore, as someone who has that very configuration
>
> Except I seem to recall something about a manufacturer starting to
> do just that and being threatened with loss of their license to
> install Win95. It might even have been Compaq, though I'm not
> certain about that.
Compaq wanted to remove the IE icon from the desktop. Microsoft countered
that no one may remove anything off its desktop. The issue was never
about whether or not Netscape's browser (or its icon) should be there.
Again, it's Microsoft's OS, so they have the right to decide how and if it
is modified.
> And in the past, even if you bought a system with, say, Linux on
> it, you paid for Win95 if the manufacturer was licensed to OEM it.
Yes, that was wrong, and illegal, and it has stopped since.
(Incidentally, the manufacturer could still simply install a retail
version of DOS and Windows on the machine. Nothing could prevent that.
It would cost a bit more, but $50 or so isn't all that significant when
talking about a $2000 computer. But the licensing scheme was still
illegal.)
> That meant that the only way to get a system without paying for
> Windows 95 was to buy all the pieces and put it together yourself.
Which, as we all know, is the *only* good way to buy a computer. :)
Anatoly Delm
On 26 Jan 1998, Alan Miller wrote:
> >They aren't? Solaris certainly has a "dominance" on the Sparc workstation
> >platform -- are you telling me that Netscape didn't sign on with them for
> >that reason? If Microsoft must stick to distributing its browser off its
> >web site, why does Netscape get to do something different?
>
> Right, but that's like saying Ford has a "dominance" in the Ford
> replacement body panel market. Sun is not the only workstation
> vendor out there, and Sparc is not a particularly dominant chipset
> in the workstation arena. Intel is a very dominant chipset in the
> PC arena, and MS is a very dominant OS in the PC arena.
Well, afaik, Sun has the best-selling Unix workstations by far, and that
is certainly not insignificant. But the issue is not that. No, Sun is
not the only choice, and neither are MS or Intel. Domination of a
particular market (in Sun's case, Unix workstations) is not illegal.
Using it to your advantage is not illegal, either. It only becomes
illegal when you have a monopoly, and there is no such thing in the
computer industry at this time. (The closest being IBM with mainframes.)
>
> ajm
> --
> Alan Miller \\ a...@mcs.net or a...@pobox.com
> <a href="http://www.mcs.net/~ajm">AJM's WWW page</a> or
> <a href="http://www.pobox.com/~ajm">AJM's WWW page (portable link)</a>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anatoly Delm
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Anatoly Delm wrote:
> Compaq wanted to remove the IE icon from the desktop. Microsoft countered
> that no one may remove anything off its desktop. The issue was never
> about whether or not Netscape's browser (or its icon) should be there.
> Again, it's Microsoft's OS, so they have the right to decide how and if it
> is modified.
Actually, I believe Compaq wanted to remove IE altogether. Sorry.
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Anatoly Delm wrote:
> Not quite true. Oracle's Larry Ellison is pushing his NCs -- their whole
> raison d'etre is to be an interface to the Internet. The integration of
> IE with Windows 95 accomplishes the same thing; it allows the use of the
> same interface for both local and networked files, in essence, eliminating
> the interface difference between a document on your hard drive, and one on
> a networked machine half a world away. That's a huge change from the
> computing model used by personal computers since their inception.
YM "requires". Big difference. From what I understand, it's impossible to
stop IE components from interfering with the process, no matter what you
install, uninstall, delete or gimmick.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cliff Sharp | To see why I call them SperMCI, check out their |
| WA9PDM | long-time customer at http://208.148.158.45/ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Alan Miller
Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Contrast it to the situation with IE, which is already "free", and is
>marketed mostly at "consumers" who want brand names. And again, even if
>Netscape does succeed in making its browser the standard, the amount of
>money they will get from it is equal to the worth of the lint in my left
>pocket.
I don't think Netscape is trying to get money from their browser. I
think they're trying to get a huge development team to improve the
browser at no cost to them, select the improvements they want to keep
and make them part of the next official release, and keep on going
from there.
If some of those improvements only work with Netscape's server products,
well, that just means that they have a better browser to work with
those and in the meantime they've devoted their development time to
improving the server products. They sell more server products, plus
maybe some enterprise licenses for the browser with some business
add-ins, and they rake in the money.
And, since they decide what goes into the official release, they can
retain control of it. Perhaps they decide not to include features that
are useful only with MS server products. Perhaps they include features
like that, on the basis that maybe they can have the best browser
available if you're using MS servers as well - wouldn't that just piss
MS off no end?
Anatoly Delm
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:
> Some high-end GM cars come with a radio, although one can upgrade. But
> mid- and low-end cars don't. Those who feel "forced" to buy the radio to
AFAIK, even the Cavalier (and perhaps even the Metro) now come with a
radio (or some other sound system) included.
> > This puts aftermarket manufacturers and installers at a disadvantage; even
> > if their product is superior, the customer is discouraged from buying it,
> > because he already has a radio that he will have to throw away.
>
> Not true either. There is a big replacement parts market because car radio
> repair is expensive. Nearly any junkyard will buy the "old" radio.
Ok, maybe not throw it away, but surely he won't get the same price for it
as he paid for a new one. What I am saying is, this is parallel to the
MSIE/Windows 95 situation. A manufacturer includes a certain (technically
unnecessary) product as part of a package.
> > current situation. According to your logic, GM should leave the space for
> > the radio vacant, since it can't use its dominance in one market -- cars
> > -- to sell another product (stereos).
>
> They do so in every case where they don't include the radio.
Even if this is true (and I don't believe it is anymore), it is far more
difficult to get a car without a radio. Moreover, there are versions of
Windows 95 without IE.
> > The reason GM is allowed to do this (and ought to be) is because they
> > designate the radio to be a part of the car. A consumer should not expect
> > to have a choice of axles, struts, or door frames for a given model, and
> > neither is he expected to have a choice of manufacturers for the sound
> > system.
>
> Bet the car will run better without a radio than it will without an axle
> or a strut or a door frame.
Exactly my point. The radio is not at all necessary to the operation of
the car. (Neither is air conditioning). But GM has a right to define
what a "car" it sells is, even if that includes the radio.
> > The same logic applies to IE and Windows 95. Microsoft has said that its
> > operating systems should have integrated web-browsing capabilities; as
> > such, IE is designated a part of Windows.
>
> Ergo, you accept Microsoft's "right" to redefine "operating system".
As a matter of fact, yes. We've been redefining what an OS is ever since
the first one came out. Hard drive support, networking, SMP -- all of
that is not technically necessary to run a computer; yet the OS
manufacturers routinely include them. If you don't like Microsoft's
version of an OS, kindly don't buy it. Since the Internet is now becoming
more and more important to the average user (you know, the "INFORMATION
SUPERHIGHWAY!!" and all that), it seems to make sense to create an
Internet- and Web-aware OS. This is no less valid than making networking
a part of the OS, instead of having the user load device drivers, NLMs,
etc.
> > Since Windows is a Microsoft
> > product, it stands to reason that Microsoft should be able to say what is
> > and isn't Windows. (No, this is not a consumer decision. The consumer can
> > accept or reject it, but the consumer cannot micromanage designs. Hence
> > even the "government as a representative of the consumer" argument doesn't
> > wash.)
>
> Again, my information says that the consumer can't reject it because he can't
> completely remove it.
The consumer can reject it by not upgrading, or buying the OS. He can also
simply not use the Internet Explorer browser. And all the noise and
contempt charges by the DoJ a few weeks ago seemed to say that the browser
can be easily removed. (MS, incidentally, was saying otherwise.)
If not, then it is an integral part of the OS, and there is nothing
illegal in requiring that it be present. Either way, the suit is
baseless.
> > By the same token, if a manufacturer has agreed to license Windows
> > and sell it under that brand name, Microsoft should have the right to
> > determine the look-and-feel of the product, including whether or not a
> > certain icon appears on the desktop.
>
> Look-and-feel considerations don't allow them to redefine "operating system".
But they do allow them to define "Windows 95." It's their own product,
whatever you choose to call it. If you want it to be called "Operating
System with Web Integration," fine.
> > Just because they settled the matter
> > doesn't mean that the DoJ was right.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Microsoft is both rich enough and litigious enough
> to bury the DoJ on any issue where they feel they're right.
I am certainly not kidding. In business, and litigation in particular,
what usually matters is not who is right, but what is the cost/benefit
ratio of proving that you are right. (That's why personal injury
attorneys make such a good living.) The whole browser war, IMHO, is
pointless. Microsoft realized that they would gain little by pursuing
this, and settled. A settlement is not an admission of guilt.
> > The licensees were permitted to install Navigator (or anything else); they
> > were just not permitted to remove IE.
>
> Netscape's complaint is that companies like Compaq were NOT allowed to install
> Netscape.
That's simply not true. At no point did Microsoft prevent the
installation of Navigator onto Compaq PCs (they have no right to do so).
They merely protested the removal of IE. If removing IE causes the
problems you say it does, then shouldn't they be preventing it??
> > If the consumer wishes to remove
> > IE, he can do so after purchase.
>
> My information says this is a manual operation beyond the ability of most
> computer users, and that even an expert can't remove some parts of it. In
> any event, I've spoken first-hand with users who've used the 'uninstall'
> application and been left with broken pieces of not much of anything.
I have done it myself several times. I went to the Control Panel, and
selected to remove IE. No problem. Windows 95 sans IE came back, and is
running just fine. So is Navigator.
> > Going back to our analogy, it is as if
> > you could remove the AC Delco stereo and replace it with a Pioneer, or
> > even keep the two side-by-side. The point is, the consumer, not the
> > Department of Justice, decides.
>
> The consumer has no say. He can not remove IE, period.
The consumer always has a say. If nothing else, he can switch operating
systems altogether. Yes, it is more difficult technically, but it is
still a choice.
> > software for $90, they wouldn't be in business very long. If the OS price
> > jumped up to $500, consumers would look elsewhere. Legally, however, I
> > see no basis for prosecution here.
>
> Seems to me there's case law on that, but I can't remember specifics.
Hmm.. maybe. If someone can quote a relevant ruling or statute, by all
means.
> > But someone should at least make a note of the fact that Netscape is not
> > just an innocent victim here; it is merely getting a taste of its own
> > medicine.
>
> You're saying Netscape makes an operating system? Or have they set up a
No, of course not.
> contractual agreement that virtually forces computer makers to put Netscape
> on the computer? Or that Netscape isn't completely removable from the system?
From 1994 until about 1996, Netscape Navigator was the browser used by
some 93-97% of the world's Web users. NSCP was using the fact that its
browser is so dominant to put in non-standard, W3-unapproved tags, thus
single-handedly dismantling the open-standards-based nature of the web,
and locking smaller browser manufacturers out of the market. It was also
leveraging its name and the ubiquity of its browsers (which supported
certain proprietary https standards) to sell its web server software, and
especially its secure server software, which only supported the
proprietary protocols. It is largely thanks to Netscape, not Microsoft,
that smaller browser creators such as Spyglass, Spry, and NCSA quit making
new browser software; if Microsoft had not stepped in, Netscape would have
a genuine monopoly on web browsers.
Personally, I have no problem with that. But laws should be applied
equally, and Netscape, Microsoft, Lotus, Corel, Sun, ad nauseum use pretty
much the same tactics throughout. The only difference is that Microsoft
has been more successful selling its operating systems and GUI systems to
the consumer market, whereas Sun and Co. have previously gone only after
the high-end workstation market, viewing the Intel PC platform as inferior
technology that would never threaten their industry. Now that they have
seen how wrong they were, caught with their pants down, they can do
nothing but petition the government for help.
> > And again, I fail to see why Microsoft should be singled out in
> > this fashion. If your logic is correct, the government should prosecute
> > Netscape as vigorously as Microsoft.
>
> That's a big jump of logic that implies all the nonoperative statements you
> made before. Microsoft is being singled out because they've made it impossible
> to completely remove all of MSIE's functionality.
??!? I thought the whole crux of the DoJ's contempt charge was that it
*is* possible to remove IE. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure Judge
Jackson claimed to have done it himself. MSFT is arguing exactly the
opposite.
> >(say, for pushing its inferior email
> > and news-readers, as well as CoolTalk, by using its overwhelming market
> > share in browsers)
>
> Uh-uh. That's like punishing GM for pushing its inferior cars and trucks
> by using its overwhelming market share in vehicles. If they got the market
> share legally, they can't arbitrarily have it taken away because they're big.
Aha! Maybe we're in agreement after all... So then, if it is OK for
Netscape to use its dominance in browsers to push other, supposedly
inferior, internet software -- why is it not OK for Microsoft to use its
dominance in operating systems to push other, supposedly inferior,
internet software?
> > There is no monopoly here. None. Consumers have a choice in hardware
> > platforms, operating systems, and browsers.
>
> You keep saying that. They don't. The average (therefore nontechnical) buyer
> is stuck with Win95, and therefore stuck with MSIE because Microsoft made it
> difficult to remove *any* of it and impossible to remove *all* of it.
The average buyer is not stuck with the Windows setup; Windows is simply
best suited to that market. Assuming he has a brain, there is no reason
why the average computer buyer can't install Linux or FreeBSD -- yes, they
are not as easy to use or as pretty, but they are workable. There is also
no reason another software company can't create a user-friendly OS that
competes with Windows 95 -- I believe that OS/2 tried to do just that,
and, had it not been for IBM's marketing incompetence, might have
succeeded. Since there are so many people supposedly making "free"
software the best there is, why can't they design a GUI for Linux that
would be comparable in ease of use to Windows 95 or MacOS?
It is true that people *prefer* Windows 95 over Unix or OS/2 systems
because of ease of use, more software availability, or what have you --
but they still make that choice themselves. The only reason it seems that
people are "stuck" with Windows 95 is because a). the Intel platform is
the most cost-effective platform on the market today, and b). Microsoft's
software for the Intel platform, from the perspective of an average buyer,
is clearly superior to the alternatives. MS has no control over (a), and
surely (b) is not something they should be punished for.
> > There are thousands of
> > software companies out there. The fact that Microsoft is the favorite
> > amongst the consumers doesn't make it a monopoly any more than Nike,
> > Levis, Coke, or Kraft.
>
> But they appear to be trying really hard.
Every company tries to be a monopolist. That's the definition of
competition -- trying to defeat all of your opponents. The opposite
strategy -- cooperation -- is what is, in fact, prohibited. I don't think
that will ever happen to Microsoft, given the huge pace of change in the
computer industry (does anyone even realize that MS wasn't all that big a
deal until only 8 years ago?), and the number of other companies in the
field.
> > The government does not need to get involved,
> > since the consumer is not being hurt now, and is not likely to be hurt in
> > the future.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Since you're probably going to keep using your GM/radio analogy anyway, let's
> make it more appropriate. The whole thing is like GM putting the ignition
> control computer in the radio; buy an aftermarket radio and install it, and
> the car doesn't run any more.
I see your point; however, it simply isn't true. Windows 95 worked before
IE was even developed; I also know from experience that it works after IE
4 is removed (yes, I had desktop integration turned on).
I guess it's a bit more valid with Windows 98, but again: this approach is
perfectly legal. GM can redefine its product to include a salad shooter,
if they wanted to -- it's their product, y'know? If you don't like it,
the Ford dealership is down the street. I see no reason for the DoJ to
get up in arms over the fact that Pontiacs now have salad shooters
embedded in the trunk.
Likewise with Windows 98 -- if Microsoft says that its operating systems
are now web-aware, that is perfectly legal -- just as it was legal for
them to make then network-aware, or printer-aware, or hard-drive-aware.
If the consumer feels that he is getting his money's worth, he will plunk
down the dough; if not, he'll buy something else. There are always
choices; not all are equally good (anyone wanna buy an XT?), but they are
there.
Anatoly Delm
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Clifton T. Sharp Jr. wrote:
> > raison d'etre is to be an interface to the Internet. The integration of
> > IE with Windows 95 accomplishes the same thing; it allows the use of the
> ^^^^^^
> > same interface for both local and networked files, in essence, eliminating
>
> YM "requires". Big difference. From what I understand, it's impossible to
> stop IE components from interfering with the process, no matter what you
> install, uninstall, delete or gimmick.
Even if this were true, it's MS's system, so I think they can define and
redefine their APIs and UI at will.
Regardless, this really is not true. As someone who uses IE 4, I can tell
you that its level of integration with the desktop is extremely
customizable. Yes, you can set your computer so that all the icons are
underlined and single clicked; you can also set it to behave just like the
old Windows Explorer; or you can be somewhere in between, like me.
Nothing at all is required.
From a programmer perspective, the old APIs are still kept there, since
to do otherwise would break an awful lot of the installed-base programs,
thus eliminating Windows' biggest advantage: the huge amount of software
designed for it. I can't speak for programmers, but, from a user
perspective, IE integration is a completely positive thing. (Provided
that you have powerful enough hardware to run it. That's why I had to
uninstall it off my AMD machine -- too slow.)
Martin J. Maney
In chi.internet Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Well, then -- there are virtually thousands of Intel-compatible systems,
> both in terms of processors (AMD, Cyrix, IBM) and other hardware. These
> configurations run a veritable cornucopia (always wanted to say that) of
> operating systems, including Windows, OS/2, Linux, BSD, NextStep, Plan 9,
> etc. Yet people keep claiming that Intel and Microsoft have a "monopoly."
> If the logic holds for Sun, it certainly holds for Wintel.
AFAyouK, that is, right? Okay, maybe you aren't a troll and this is
just Aahz's law in action. In the case of Sun, the OS is a version of
Unix, and many of the applications people buy SUn hardware to run is
available for the non-Sun versions of Unix. That's why Sun doesn't
HAVE the sort of OS monopoly that MS has. If you want to run a
Windows application, you absolutely must use MS code. OS/2's WINOS2
subsystem is based on MS code (and hence requires a licensing and
royalty arrangements with MS). The only non-licensed alternative,
other than simple theft, is the Wine project, and that's a long way
away from being a viable replacement for Windows. (1)
For someone who wants to run Word (because everyone else in the office
assumes you have the latest version, and you're dead if you don't
because MS makes sure the default file formats can't be read by
anyhting but the latest version), there is no choice at all. That's a
de facto OS monopoly.
(1) I certainly don't want to belittle the Wine project, but they took
on a huge job. They've done quite well, but it's far from done.
Martin J. Maney
In chi.internet Alan Miller <a...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> Right, but that's like saying Ford has a "dominance" in the Ford
> replacement body panel market. Sun is not the only workstation
> vendor out there, and Sparc is not a particularly dominant chipset
> in the workstation arena. Intel is a very dominant chipset in the
> PC arena, and MS is a very dominant OS in the PC arena.
Yes. Anatoly is so very fond of this automotive analogy that I'm
tempted to try to modify reality to try to make it fit. Okay, if MS
is GM, then right off the bat you have to forget about Ford, Chrysler,
and everyone else. Well, maybe we could leave Yugo and one or two
other real fringe players to represent such fringe efforts as Wine.
So, okay, GM *is* the passengar car market, and they decide to make
everyone pay for that radio - it's just bundled wit hthe car whether
you want it or not. Uhm...
Gosh, it doesn't sound at all like it does when Anatoly tells it.
Martin J. Maney
> radio (or some other sound system) included.
FYI - and you could have looked this up if you had wanted to - the
Metro does NOT include the radio. In fact, the radio is available
(from GM) even without popping for a package of geegaws.
It does seem that you prefer to make outrageous claims and weasel out
by disingenously whining "AFAIK! AFAIK!".
Anatoly Delm
On 26 Jan 1998, Martin J. Maney wrote:
> In chi.internet Anatoly Delm <de...@eesn19.ews.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > Well, then -- there are virtually thousands of Intel-compatible systems,
> > both in terms of processors (AMD, Cyrix, IBM) and other hardware. These
> > configurations run a veritable cornucopia (always wanted to say that) of
> > operating systems, including Windows, OS/2, Linux, BSD, NextStep, Plan 9,
> > etc. Yet people keep claiming that Intel and Microsoft have a "monopoly."
> > If the logic holds for Sun, it certainly holds for Wintel.
>
> AFAyouK, that is, right? Okay, maybe you aren't a troll and this is
> just Aahz's law in action. In the case of Sun, the OS is a version of
Wow, what mature arguing techniques. "I disagree with you, and I have
trouble with persuasive writing, ergo you are a 'troll.'" Wow.
Incidentally, what I say above is true, and yes, I do know it. When I say
"afaik," I'm admitting that I'm not perfect, and can't know everything --
neither can you, as seen below, but you must nevertheless show that you
are the god of computing. Gimme a break. If you want to argue with me,
fine; do it the way that Alan, David, and "Strange" have done.
> Unix, and many of the applications people buy SUn hardware to run is
> available for the non-Sun versions of Unix. That's why Sun doesn't
Yes, and many applications available for Windows are also available for
Macs, and used to be available for OS/2. However, unless the source is
released, a Solaris binary is not usable on HPUX, or Linux, or anything
else. Moreover, any applications other than trivial command-line stuff
have to be ported to other Unix flavors, anyway. Therefore the whole "it's
all Unix" argument isn't valid, either.
> HAVE the sort of OS monopoly that MS has. If you want to run a
> Windows application, you absolutely must use MS code. OS/2's WINOS2
This never ceases to amaze me. There are at least four non-MS operating
systems available for the Intel PC platform. There is also the
Apple/Motorola-based platform. There are various RISC-based Unix
workstation platforms. Yet Microsoft supposedly has a "monopoly." I love
your line of reasoning -- "if you want to run a (Microsoft) Windows
application, you have to use MS code." In other words, you mean to tell
me that if I want to run an application designed for Microsoft Windows, I
have to use Microsoft Windows?!? Wow! The government must check this
out! What an outrage!!
Incidentally, what choice of operating systems do I have to run OS/2 apps?
NextStep apps? MacOS apps? Does Apple have a monopoly on MacOS apps? Of
course! They designed MacOS!
Incidentally, the definition of a monopoly (Oxford English Dictionary):
"Exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise; the
condition of having no competitor in the sale of some commodity, or in the
exercise of some trade or business..." Please notice the key word:
exclusive. It means that no one else gets to trade in a certain kind of
goods -- in this case, operating systems; not the same as exclusive
control of the sale of one brand of product.
> subsystem is based on MS code (and hence requires a licensing and
> royalty arrangements with MS). The only non-licensed alternative,
> other than simple theft, is the Wine project, and that's a long way
> away from being a viable replacement for Windows. (1)
Ah, so there is a non-licensed alternative in the works. (I knew that,
but I'll pretend that I didn't, Ok?) So it *is* possible to create one.
> For someone who wants to run Word (because everyone else in the office
> assumes you have the latest version, and you're dead if you don't
> because MS makes sure the default file formats can't be read by
> anyhting but the latest version), there is no choice at all. That's a
Sure there is. First, there are converters. (No, they aren't perfect, but
considering that 90-some percent of documents are plain
text-and-simple-formatting anyway, they certainly would suffice.) Second,
everyone else got to make that same choice (the latest version of Word).
Third, a third party can always make better converters. Finally, Word can
always save in previous formats.
> de facto OS monopoly.
An *OS* monopoly? What's a word processor got to do with the OS?
Wow, ad hominem attacks -- *and* strained logic...
Anatoly Delm
On 26 Jan 1998, Martin J. Maney wrote:
> Yes. Anatoly is so very fond of this automotive analogy that I'm
> tempted to try to modify reality to try to make it fit. Okay, if MS
Cool. Now I have the power to modify reality. Bending space-time can't
be far off.
> is GM, then right off the bat you have to forget about Ford, Chrysler,
> and everyone else. Well, maybe we could leave Yugo and one or two
> other real fringe players to represent such fringe efforts as Wine.
Fringe players? You are calling IBM/Lotus, Apple, Sun, and
Hewlett-Packard "fringe players"?? Have you seen the latest Fortune 500?
IBM is at #6. Apple is at 9. I forget where HP is, but it's in the top
20. Sun is somewhere up there as well. Microsoft is at... 172. That's
right, there are 165 companies in the United States that are smaller than
IBM, but larger than Microsoft. Some fringe.
True -- with the departure of OS/2 from this earth, the current
competitors to MS in operating systems are much smaller. So what? What
is preventing IBM or Sun from developing a Windows-compatible OS for the
Intel platform? (Sun has done just that with the PPro, by the way. It
ain't no small-potatoes company, either.)
The fact is, contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is up against some huge
and rather well-funded competitors. No, they aren't underdogs or victims,
but neither are they aggressors whose main asset is size. If that were
all, Apple would have squashed them a long time ago.
> So, okay, GM *is* the passengar car market, and they decide to make
> everyone pay for that radio - it's just bundled wit hthe car whether
> you want it or not. Uhm...
>
> Gosh, it doesn't sound at all like it does when Anatoly tells it.
Sounds like exactly what I said, and I stand by it. Maybe not on the
Metro (which is actually made by Isuzu, and driven only if absolutely
necessary), but even the Cavalier now has AM/FM as standard. (Yes, I
checked.) So I ask again, why is something all right for one company
(GM), but not for another (Microsoft)?
JBrown3005
I was looking into getting a cell phone with Cellular One, but the salesperson
said that the contracts were for two years. How are you going to get out of
your contract with them Karl?
>Don't know. But what I do know is that as soon as some of the >PCS providers
have national inbound and outbound roaming at >reasonable rates, I'm gone from
Cellular One.
>
>If I didn't need the roaming capability I would have left as
>soon as these systems became available - better pricing and a >better
all-around deal.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving >Chicagoland and Wisconsin
>http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3
Anatoly Delm
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Anatoly Delm wrote:
> is preventing IBM or Sun from developing a Windows-compatible OS for the
> Intel platform? (Sun has done just that with the PPro, by the way. It
> ain't no small-potatoes company, either.)
> Sounds like exactly what I said, and I stand by it. Maybe not on the
> Metro (which is actually made by Isuzu, and driven only if absolutely
Oops, some fingers-faster-than-the-brain mistakes here. Sun has made a
version of Solaris for Intel platforms, but it's not, of course,
Windows-compatible. Nevertheless, there is no reason some other company
can't make an OS that supports the Windows APIs (which are documented and
freely available) using its own internal code.
The Geo (now Chevrolet) Metro is made by Suzuki, not Isuzu. It is a twin
of the Suzuki Swift. (Isuzu? Suzuki? So sue me! <-- say that 10 times
fast :)
Martin J. Maney
> checked.) So I ask again, why is something all right for one company
> (GM), but not for another (Microsoft)?
Because GM doesn't have the monopoly on passengar cars that MS has on
Windows (the OS). And I'm glad you've learned to consider what you
say before you say it, but the rest of your reply, like most of your
recent blather, still rests on this deeply broken analogy, so I'll
leave it to you to pick up the pieces if you want to.
Oh, and you might want to consider that the Oxford, wonderful
reference though it is, is not authoritative about what is legally a
monopoly in this country. Nor in England - that definition is the
platonic ideal of monopoly, not a working one for use in commerce or
law.
Looking things up is good: looking up relevant things is better.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <slrn6cj6v...@joshua.enteract.com>
tq...@joshua.enteract.com (Thomas H. Ptacek) writes:
> In all the time you spent typing this thing up, you could have shot
> through at least a chapter or two of K&R2 and been on your way to learning
> how to do some of this. I don't think the problem with enhancing Netscape
> is the lack of ideas.
You underestimate my typing speed. But more importantly, you
overestimate the relevance of Kernigan and Ritchie. A long time ago I
learned the basics of the C programming language - the problem is that
they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any real-life programming
example I'd attempt now. It's sort of like trying to use a familiarity
with Gregor Mendel to try to clone sheep.
The problem is that if I want to be able to create a USABLE variant of
Netscape for (for example) Macinsh*t, I'd have to go out and buy a
7-volume series "Inside the Macinsh*t", which would explain all the
funny machine-specific interfaces for drawing windows, talking to
Internet, etc. After all, Netscape doesn't DO much else - you're not
going to need to do too much abstract calculation, it's all a question
of how to move data in and move it out. And then, even if I succeeded,
would it work on any other type of Macinsh*t in the entire world? By
the time I learned how to do something that a professional could
probably do in 15 minutes, the whole operating system would get updated
and I'd have more things I don't know about that would have to be fixed
to keep it from crashing on some machine I've never touched, etc.
Programming just doesn't seem like a hobbyist's sometime recreation any
more. If you're not doing it full-time, you can't keep up with the
changes, and also there are the costs of programs and documentation to
consider.
Also, as far as creativity is concerned: if programmers are so bursting
with creativity, then WHY are there so many EXACT RIPOFFS of Defender,
Tetris, Galaga, etc.? (Well, alright, they're usually not exact
ripoffs because they suck in subtle and important ways, but it's not
because of any programmer creativity!)
Michael Cloran
>
>Don't know. But what I do know is that as soon as some of the PCS providers
>have national inbound and outbound roaming at reasonable rates, I'm gone
>from Cellular One.
>
>If I didn't need the roaming capability I would have left as soon as these
>systems became available - better pricing and a better all-around deal.
Did you check out the AT&T PCS offering with the Ericsson dual-band
phones. (The phones are PCS and analog/digital cellular.) We just
bought 10 of them here and everyone loves them so far...
(They have a 'charter' pricing deal where they'll give you home rates
in any AT&T wireless market in the country...)
--
Michael Cloran
EnterAct, L.L.C.
Karl Denninger
In article <34cf0d41....@news.enteract.com>,
Yes... but the *inbound* roaming doesn't work in a lot of places.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Anatoly Delm wrote:
> Incidentally, the definition of a monopoly (Oxford English Dictionary):
> "Exclusive possession of the trade in some article of merchandise; the
> condition of having no competitor in the sale of some commodity, or in the
> exercise of some trade or business..." Please notice the key word:
> exclusive. It means that no one else gets to trade in a certain kind of
> goods -- in this case, operating systems; not the same as exclusive
> control of the sale of one brand of product.
Since you seem to be so convinced that the average consumer can simply
choose not to use Win95, perhaps you'll let us send you our first-time
computer purchasing friends and *you* can help them install and learn
Linux.
And no, they're not going to buy Macs. Between Microsoft and Intel and
their marketing campaigns, the public is psyched; and the prices are
skewed in favor of PCs anyway. But even if you can't provide a Mac
equivalent to a 233 MHz MMX with 32 meg / 4 gig for $1000, maybe you
can help them install System 8 on their PC.
Today's market is to the average joe to whom point-and-click means he
ran out of bullets, and AOL is a major challenge. He's not going to be
able to get anyone to sell him Linux or FreeBSD or VMS or MVS or OS/9
or DOS or CP/M or anything but Win95. Call that what you will, it's a
de facto monopoly.