Microsoft Antitrust Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Dead at 76 193
McGruber writes "The NY Times has the news that federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who ruled in 2000 that Microsoft was a predatory monopoly and must be split in half, has died. He was 76 years old. 'A technological novice who wrote his opinions in longhand and used his computer mainly to e-mail jokes, Judge Jackson refuted Microsoft's assertion that it was impossible to remove the company's Internet Explorer Web browser from its operating system by doing it himself. When a Microsoft lawyer complained that too many excerpts from Bill Gates's videotaped deposition — liberally punctuated with the phrase "I don't remember" — were shown in the courtroom, Judge Jackson said, "I think the problem is with your witness, not the way his testimony is being presented."'"
Re:It was a very stupid idea (Score:5, Informative)
It was part of their "Embrace and Extend" strategy. Embrace any popular technology by making your own free version, then extend it in a way that's incompatible with other operating systems or office software, thus creating a lock-in and even greater dependency on the core products - OS and Office.
Forged video evidence during antitrust trial (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A legitimate point flagged Flamebait? (Score:4, Informative)
But is this really any different than Apple using it's digital music player (iPod) or digital music store (iTunes) monopolies that were in the 90% marketshare range to push into the Smartphone and digital video and eBooks markets?
A main differences are that you don't have to use any or all of Apple's ecosystem. You want a digital music player that's not Apple; buy someone else. You want music that's not iTunes; buy someone else. You want some OS other than Windows when you buy a PC from Dell, HP, IBM, etc; No.
I think there's a fair point to be made that Apple has definitely leveraged monopolies it has had to enter new markets in exactly the same way Microsoft leveraged it's operating system monopoly to try and take browser marketshare.
Not exactly the same unless you have proof that Apple interfered with Amazon or Google or Microsoft when they set up their music stores. Or that they tried to block Sansa, Archos, etc from making or selling their music players. Or that they prevented Nokia, Motorola, Sony, from setting up their own music stores; incidentally I had a Verizon music store on my dumb Verizon Motorola way before iTunes/iPhone. It was $4 a track and I could not play the track outside of my phone.
This has become pretty prominent with eBooks in that they are being investigated for illegal market manipulation, but this isn't the same as anti-trust legislation used against Microsoft. In fact, one might argue that if Apple had been properly and correctly investigated for anti-trust violations it may not have ever engaged in eBook price fixing that led to increased eBook prices for consumers in the first place.
Are you implying that MS was improperly investigated?
I really don't think there's a reasonable argument that Apple is somehow different from Microsoft, it clearly has had monopolies in some markets, and it clearly has leveraged those monopolies to gain advantages in others, sometimes abusively so.
The problem is "absusive". Monopolies can exist; where companies like MS were sued was how they treated partners and competitors. It isn't abusive to offer an advantage like vertical integration. If MS had simply packaged IE with Windows that might have been okay. Threatening OEMs that MS would raise their prices if they installed Netscape was abusive. Working with Intel to undermine Netscape was abusive.