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 517722
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by fossil on Fri 11th May 2012 00:33 UTC 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

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by cyrilleberger on Fri 11th May 2012 06:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

In the MS/DOJ case, the plaintiffs and the judge explicitly declared the market in question to be "desktop operating systems on X86 processors".


Since you need a ruling in only one market to open the API everywhere, and the EU has stricter rules on competition and interoperability, nowadays, competitors are usually bringing their case to the European Commission. The only problem is that it takes a long time to get to a ruling, at least two years. By that time, Microsoft could have re-established IE as the only web browser, they would have to pay an hefty fine, but they probably consider it is worth it.

Reply Parent Score: 5