<<AOL, SUN & Netscape are THRIVING....>>
Jean,
AOL and SUNW may be thriving, but I don't think that can be said of Netscape. It basically collapsed "deprived of its air supply". I for one, liked Netscape and preferred it. I use it to this day. Its days however, may be numbered: dailynews.yahoo.com
That would not have been the case if MSFT had not attacked it the way it did. It was not enough to just offer it for free, as if that would not be enough, they coerced and threatened computer makers, such as COMPAQ, from placing Netscape on their opening screens. Later they bundled it with windows 98 and made it awkward to use an alternative browser, in spite of consumer preferences.
Fair, in my estimate, was for MSFT to have come out with a competitive browser, and let the CONSUMER's decide which they wanted without stacking the deck. And YES they might have not won market share it that manner, but they would have lost HONESTLY. Microsoft, however, was the dealer, as well as controling which cards it got for its hand and what was dealt out to others.
I also dislike the DOJ for intervening, but it was responding to an outcry by legions of competitors throughout the US. They could not be ignored. It was not just a few disgruntled competitors looking for big brother to step in. Their cases had LEGAL merit as Judge Penfield has ruled. He listened to both sides. Consumer harm has to be measured by what Netscape and other companies might have been if Microsoft's practices had been LEGAL. As Scott McNealy said, and I agree, as a monopoly there are existing laws which Microsoft was expected to follow and it was was violating those laws. It was also ignoring the 1994 consent decree. It could have been an ethical monopoly, it chose not to.
Michael
|
