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:3, Insightful)
Re:It was a very stupid idea (Score:4, Insightful)
It was about marketing. Microsoft controlled the default home page of anyone who used IE. This in turn helped promote their monopoly and push away competition.
They also knew that controlling standard document formats (in this case, HTML; also, see Office) meant that others would always be judged against Microsoft's offering, placing Microsoft on a pedestal. No wonder IE didn't conform to the actual HTML standards until Microsoft no longer held the de facto standard.
He screwed up (Score:5, Insightful)
He showed bias before the final judgement, and the ruling was nullified. It was the last best chance to break the back of the beast. Instead, we have had to put up with them for these last 13 years. They lied, cheated and stole their way to market domination. There are *hundreds* of companies and *thousands* of people they cheated and stole from. Not just Borland and Stac Electronics and IBM and DrDos and Broderbund. Not just FoxSoft and Adobe, hundreds of others.
Re:A legitimate point flagged Flamebait? (Score:1, Insightful)
Afterlife is a fairy tale. That's a scientific fact
LOL. The problem lots of folks around here have is that religion is not a disprovable theory. Your "scientific" fact needs a little work.
And yes, not only was the flamebait mod deserved, but your original post, your AC follow up, and my post here are all off topic. Get over it.
Re:It was a very stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't shoot me --- I'm not even a messenger --- sure Windows isn't going to penetrate the mobile or even tablet market simply because they are clueless and in identity crissi, but they will own the desktop market for at least a decade or 2 and it could be more than that.
No, Google Apps is not going to defeat Office let alone automate corporate documents
Re:It was a very stupid idea (Score:4, Insightful)
2) They realized that the browser would become a platform for application programming, which would mean that people no longer would be locked in to Windows as a platform.
Those were two really good reasons for them to worry about Netscape.
Re:It was a very stupid idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you high? Have you ever tried to run a Windows app via WINE? It's about as stable as a drunk on a one-legged stool!
Re:A legitimate point flagged Flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was very little alternative on the desktop when Microsoft was convicted. However Apple has a very strong competitor in both Android and Samsung. That's the difference.
Try reading the findings of fact and focus specifically on applications barrier to entry. Moving from iOS to Android is not nearly as difficult as moving from Windows to Linux or OS9 was in 2000.
Microsoft also deliberately, not once but three times, disrupted the development of middleware that would have made the migration easier. Now whether you think that any of the middleware (Netscape, Java and Intel's cross-platform device driver framework) was crap or not is irrelevant. Microsoft did this to prevent competitive threats from arising and to maintain their illegally gained market share.
Apple have tried to disrupt Android but have failed, and they have also not prevented software that allows cross-platform development. It's all in the findings of fact [justice.gov] which you clearly haven't read.
Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, that's just total nonsense. Microsoft operating system and applications are, simply put, not known for their stability. I can't even imagine you typing that with a straight face.
Yeah, sure. They just haven't been able to break into the mobile device market while that market is in the process of devouring their core business. No big deal, right?
Re:Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft (or at least Raymond Chen and his colleagues) seem to go to huge lengths [msdn.com] to make the APIs in their operating systems extremely stable, from a compatibility point of view. Which I believe is what the grandparent was referring to when he said "write once, works 3 years from now."
Re:It was a very stupid idea (Score:4, Insightful)
"Linux is far from "write once, works 3 years from now"
You obviously know nothing at all about Linux or computers in general. There are a TON of linux computers that were written once 3-5 years ago and still works great. The first Sony BluRay players, yup those run linux and they are over 3 years old and are running perfectly. Most Panasonic TV sets from 2005-now run Linux and the earlier sets never had a path for software upgrade so they are ALSO running perfectly 3+ years from when it was released.
I also know of servers that are out there that are running Linux from a decade ago. I have one that is 100% impossible to hack and is running a 2.2.x Linux kernel. It's at the top of a 120 foot tower and is acting as an APRS relay/Packet BBS and has been for well over 10 years now.
Write once and works 3,6,9,12 years from now works fantastically.
Re:A legitimate point flagged Flamebait? (Score:2, Insightful)
"MS was/is in the 90 percent range of the OS market share and Apple was/is still only in the single digit market share."
In what market? The crux of the problem is that Microsoft used it's operating system monopoly to push into the browser market.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Re: A legitimate point flagged Flamebait? (Score:4, Insightful)
So buy an Android device that doesn't have those restrictions but has the same functionality. It's hard to be anti-competitive when you have several legitimate competitors. Microsoft had no legitimate competition, any pretense that OS9/OSX or Linux were a drop-in replacement for Windows was just laughable.
Re:A legitimate point flagged Flamebait? (Score:3, Insightful)
That argument doesn't make sense because Linux, Unix, OS/2 and Mac OS were all available as alternatives during the anti-trust investigation.
I take it that you didn't read the findings of fact. Judge Jackson addressed this point. Back when MS was sued could a consumer get an OS other than Windows when buying a x86 PC from an OEM? No. They could buy an Apple which wasn't x86. The court case was always about consumers being harmed when it came to x86 PCs.
Microsoft having 90% of the market didn't change the fact 10% was comprised of alternatives, just as Apple having 90% of the portable media player market didn't change the fact 10% was comprised of alternatives.
The problem isn't just market share. Before a company is legally defined as having a monopoly there is a 3 part test. 1) Does the company have a high enough market share to control the market. 2) Is the barrier to entry high enough to discourage competition? 3) Do suitable alternatives exist? While Apple has a high market share there is some debate as to whether it is controlling. MS controlled the OS for all OEMs. As for part 2, the highest barrier to entry for music really is the consent of the content providers which isn't in Apple's hands. For OS, development with all the drivers and software was the highest barrier in the MS case. The last part is that there are plenty of alternatives if a user wanted digital music: Microsoft, Napster, Amzaon, Walmart, etc. There was no alternative really to MS Windows when it came to consumers.
I think you may have a rather one-sided pro-Apple view of the world. Have you forgotten how Apple treated Adobe effectively killing off Flash?
Apple had many issues with Flash on their devices: battery life, stability, security, etc. Were these real issues or not? It was their decision not to allow Flash. You could get Flash on their computers. Just because you don't like the end result doesn't mean there were real concerns.
Have you forgotten how Apple was rapped by the European courts by not charging fair pricing to the UK market on iTunes music?
Again, where MS got into anti-trust issues was not how they dealt with their own products. It is how they treated competitors and partners. Threatening Intel that they would favor AMD if Intel developed a Java VM. Do you have proof that Apple threatened their competitors in a similar fashion or did they simply out-compete them on pricing, features, product selection, etc?
Have you forgotten how Apple is currently being run through the courts because of the way they acted with eBooks against Amazon?
First of all, they are being going through a suit now. They could be absolved of all wrongdoing. You are treating it as if Apple was already found guilty. Second, MS was found guilty. Even the appeals court agreed with Judge Jackson's findings. They, however, disagreed with his remedy of breaking up the company. They also disagreed with his conduct especially in talking to reporters. That's a major difference.
If you think Apple hasn't engaged in abusive practices then you've been living under a rock. Some of what they have done is frankly arguably even worse than what Microsoft did - they killed off Flash which was akin to killing off Netscape, and then went and fixed eBook prices and the like on top.
Did Apple ever go to Samsung and tell them to kill of Flash? This was their entire stance on Flash: It's a shitty product; we are not going to use it. Most people would agree with that assessment. That does not make it an anti-trust matter. If you have proof that they crossed the line other than deciding not to use Flash, please present it.
You're only looking at half the picture, you're blanking from your mind rather important incidents of abuse by Apple that are rather well documented. If