Re: Dave, Netscape used to charge for their browser ( not a lot $49 I think ) until MSFT started giving IE for free.
And I recall some announcement by Bill Gates that 2,000 programmers were working on Internet Explorer and that it was the single largest program at Microsoft (at that time). Bill probably shouldn't have said that, then given IE away.
That they gave that product away, denying Netscape any revenue, is what's at issue in the AOL case. I don't know what law is being used, but I think one AOL point will be that Microsoft tied their browser to their OS, forcing customers to "pay" for Microsoft's browser because a major part of Microsoft's corporate costs were from the development of IE, which caused them to charge a higher price for Windows and Office. I'm not sure AOL will win much, if anything, from such a case. But they will establish a lot of discovery and get a lot of testimony into the record.
The issue that buyers were forced to pay more for their OS and Office software is the real issue for Microsoft. The AOL litigation will probably establish a portion of Microsoft's costs as being from IE development for a given period. If product prices are marked up from their costs (reasonable), then selling price could be allocated according to development costs.
What would 10% of Microsoft's gross revenue over 5 years come to?
This is why Microsoft's worry shouldn't be the justice department or AOL, it should be the class action attorneys who could put such a case together (and, I believe, some already have).
Remember when the tobacco companies thought they wouldn't fare too badly from litigation brought by smokers? |
