Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th May 2012 18:06 UTC
Windows Both Mozilla and Google have expressed concern over Windows 8. Microsoft's next big operating system release restricts access to certain APIs and technologies browsers need - only making them available to Internet Explorer. Looking at the facts, it would seem Mozilla and Google have a solid case - coincidentally, the responses on the web are proof of the slippery slope we're on regarding ownership over our own machines.
Thread beginning with comment 517687
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Thu 10th May 2012 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.


Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on ARM-based operating systems. Go back and read the court rulings. It only covers x86/AMD processors.

Edited 2012-05-10 20:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 10th May 2012 20:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.


Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on ARM-based operating systems. Go back and read the court rulings. It only covers x86/AMD processors.
"

Reading Daring Fireball, are we ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by fossil on Fri 11th May 2012 00:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
fossil Member since:
2009-05-29

1) I am not a laywer

2) Whether or not MS has a monopoly on ARM may not be relevant. Actually being a monopoly is not illegal in the U.S. What is illegal is being an abusive monopoly. That's what brought on the MS anti-trust action, in which MS was found guilty. Abuse of monopoly includes (but ain't limited to) forcing competitors out of business by predatory pricing (like $0.00 for IE, which put Netscape out of business), tying products (WIN 95 and IE) --seems like this may apply to "walled gardens" but like I said, IANAL; vertical restraints ... the US DOJ has a 215p. pdf online, for those who wish to know details.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by MollyC on Fri 11th May 2012 02:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

In the MS/DOJ case, the plaintiffs and the judge explicitly declared the market in question to be "desktop operating systems on X86 processors". They did that because Microsoft was going to argue that the existence of the Mac showed that Windows was not a monopoly operating system (indeed, that was one of the reasons that Microsoft bailed out Apple in the first place; keep Apple alive so that MS wouldn't have a monopoly). But the DOJ cleverly/cynically narrowed the market to cover only "x86" processors, which ruled out Macs since Macs ran on PPC processors at the time.

So, Windows has only been ruled to have a monopoly on X86. Period. Windows has no monopoly on ARM.

Ironocally, a few years later, Apple switched Macs from PPC to x86, which if had been the case earlier, there would've been no ruling that "WIndows has monopoly status for desktop OSes on x86 processors". If there would've been a monopoly rulling at all, it would've been something like: "Windows enjoys a monopoly status in the market of Windows operating systems." or, "Windows enjoys monopoly status in the market of Windows-compatible operating systems." Which would've been a sounder ruling than the "x86 processors" ruling, IMO.

Reply Parent Score: 2