Jeff,
I remember Adobe type fonts and Stacker disk compression. For each of these two areas the innovating company can be said to be no longer viable competitors. Then there is Windows GUI itself, borrowed from Apple who borrowed from Xerox PARC, and then networking. (Whew, I wonder what if anything MS did first? I can only think of GWBASIC).
Precisely why the DOJ is looking at anti-trust action. Apple is not really viable and Xerox PARC is no longer in this type of business (I believe). If MSFT is allowed to continue, Netscape will be no longer as well. This is not a case of out competing but rather a predatory assimilation. If you look at the entire history of languages, GWBASIC was 'lifted' from BASIC and 'enhanced' so that other 'BASICs' would not work. This has been the history of MSFT. Take something that works, leverage into the market, change it so that only MSFT's version works, and then let the competition die.
As I said, incorporating the HTTP protocol into the OS can be justified.
Incorporating the GUI (which most people think of as the 'browser') into the OS is the sticking point. Some will say innovating, others bundling, others anti-competitive and still others things worse.
Now how is this different from INTeL®?
MSFT:
1. Others have come up with the ideas and software.
2. MSFT is a late comer.
3. There are international standards which, IMHO, MSFT is trying to usurp to its advantage and to the detriment of the competition.
INTC:
1. INTeL® has been the innovator. They have come up with the idea(s) first.
2. INTeL® has been first to market.
3. There are no international standards - INTeL® is the standards committee.
Remember, there is already different 'extensions' to the HTML that is the content of the web provided by HTTP. One version is MSFT's the other NSCP's. The international standards committee has adopted extensions proffered by NSCP but not MSFT (unless I have missed one somewhere). The NSCP extensions have been a natural growth of the original language whereas the extensions offered by MSFT have been tied to their software. I believe the common man would tend to think of this as anti-competitive. Particularly if MSFT should gain their objective of being the dominant provider of internet software.
As to equivalent INTeL® scenarios:
If INTeL® were to build clones of the PowerPC chip and then try to wrest control of the architecture away, there would probably be an anti-trust proceeding.
The Chips & Technology deal had the potential of anti-trust activity. However, the major difference is INTeL® went out and bought the company and brought it in-house to operate as a separate division. (MSFT does not seem to be doing this. They could have bought Spry(???) as a browser company and used that to compete with NSCP.)
Come to think, the only real scenario is INTeL® cloning their competitors chips and giving them away.
Appologies to the rest of the thread for so much off topic, but insight here gives us insight into how INTeL® has been doing business and why they are not the subject of anti-trust probes like MSFT is.
Regards,
dmg
(Go INTeL® Go to $200 - [post all splits: past, present & future]) |
