To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Historically, yes, correct. IBM had a huge anti-trust case against it for this.
IBM's reaction was to change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely.
Actually, IBM donates more than money ... they have donated code. Vast amounts of it. Probably more so than anyone else. See the above comment about "change their corporate behaviour. Turn it around completely". This is an excellent example of exactly that turn-around.
Microsoft also had a huge anti-trust case against it. Microsoft's response was to turn the DOJ around completely, and utterly corrupt them. Now we have the US government anti-trust investigators saying things like "Microsoft is not the problem" and going after Google.
Can you say "stooges"? Can you say "bought"?
IBM did unspeakable things in the past. The cloned BIOS was a response to the desktop monopoly they held. Affordable IBM pricing only came after true competition with them in the general software market.
I see two differences though, IBM was knocked out of the top position and has since aged. They promote FOSS solutions and directly provide service contracts for multiple OS including FOSS platforms. They also contribute a huge amount of code along with being a member of the FOSS patent guild (whatever the exact name of that is). IBM's abuse of the market and consumer is mostly in the past unless there is some ongoing predatory practice I've not heard about; and if there is, I want to hear about it.
IBM, like any inherently amoral big business, should be considered with healthy skepticism.
On the other hand, MS abuses of the market are very recent and predatory practices seem to be ongoing. They are still basing marketing campaigns on attacking FOSS in general and Linux specifically. If they demonstrate and ongoing history of promoting and supporting FOSS either as a business service or through code submission and patent agreements and similar good-will participation. As it stands now, the history remains too recent to be comparing them to IBM though MS could also manage to outlast there own negative history.
Edited 2009-07-24 14:12 UTC





Member since:
2009-07-08
Microsoft has a long history of very dirty business tactics to snuff out ALL competitors ruthlessly. Thats why they are a monopoly and will remain so for the forseeable future.
I caution anybody dealing with them to never forget this.
Edited 2009-07-24 01:35 UTC