I knew this. You didnt appear to and went on about how anti-trust laws were meant to prevent blah blah blah
Now you fess up to knowing the truth of the case, and that makes you a liar. Lying to advance your biased point is not honorable.
Please stop being silly, and if you want a really technical discussion of the ins and outs of Microsoft's legal troubles start a specific thread about it for those who care as much as you do. Or just go read wikipedia.
Judging by your recent lies, and your clear bias, of what worth is your opinion on the quality of IE? Further, how reliable must we expect your conclusion as to Microsofts motives must be...?
Rather than drift further off-topic, I'll let anyone who really cares about the history of IE read about it themselves. Judge the facts for yourself.
Clearly Apple doesnt have the same motives you claim Microsoft had, right? Why, Apple is just so damn innocent when THEY bundle Safari for their users, right?
You could make a case that bundling Safari would be anti-competitive if Apple controlled 90% or more of the OS market, which Apple does not. However since Safari has no proprietary widgets I am aware of, in theory anyone could write a browser that does everything Safari does and more to compete with Safari. IE contained proprietary systems, which made competing with it directly problematic.
Which part of the Clayton Act is this?
I am looking right at Title 15 sections 12 through 27, and do not see a basis for your claim.
The one you want is "§ 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor". The letter of that passage forbids making a sale conditional on the purchaser not using rival products, if doing so would tend to harm competition or lead to a monopoly. Forcing customers to buy IE along with Windows fits the making-a-sale-conditional-etc part and IE's use of unique proprietary systems for rendering web pages combined with Microsoft's dominance of the OS market fits the bit about harming competition and threatening to establish a monopoly. If the situation fits both parts of the equation, forced sale and threat to competition, it's illegal.
There is scope to question whether making the customer purchase Y along with X should count as forcing the customer to agree not to buy other products which compete with Y, and so be illegal by the letter of that law. Since the Clayton act is generally referred to as forbidding such acts I strongly suspect that case law has held it to be so, although not having access to a on-line law library I can't verify that.
I am simply not going to accept the claims of a known liar, but if you can cite precisely where to look and it is infact in there we can move on with you having told the truth for once, else I am going to assume that you lied again.
This is a creatively sleazy combination of
ad hominem attacks and an attempt to shift the burden of proof, to be sure. Are you by any chance a Politics forum regular? This is the sort of thing I expect to see there more than here.
(those issues being that you dont like IE)
As I said, if you're curious about the technical reasons why IE was dangerous and why IE deliberately made it difficult to write web pages that worked for both IE and everyone else you can go check the details out for yourself. It's not terribly relevant to the thread topic today, since competition has slapped most of the stupid out of IE.
So you are saying that Apple, who is doing the exact same thing, is also guilty of 'tying'?
That is a Yes or No question.
You can't be "guilty of tying", you can only be "guilty of tying in such a way as to substantially limit competition or create a monopoly". It's a personal judgement call as to whether bundling Safari with the OS substantially limits competition from browsers like Opera, Firefox, iCab and Omniweb. I don't see it as substantial, but you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter. My guess is that if there was a case to be made somebody would have taken Apple to court by now, but that's just a guess.
Standards compliant? Whos standard? Are you saying that Microsoft must follow someone elses standard, or else they are breaking the law? You seem to not know what the hell you are talking about.
What you are describing is a forced legal end to private competitive innovation and is clearly not what any of the anti-trust acts are for, nor how they are legally interrpreted.
(iTunes is bundled on the Mac .. under your interpretation of the law, ILLEGAL)
You're missing the point a bit. It's not illegal to write a buggy browser that is incompatible with existing standards in annoying ways. It's illegal to use an existing monopoly to force such a browser on people, if doing so is going to substantially suppress competition and/or lead to them monopolising the broswer market.
The software bundled with the Mac OS fails the test for illegality under Clayton on both points. There is no pre-existing monopoly, which is the end of that whole argument, and in addition there is no substantial threat to competition.
In this particular case, Microsoft had already agreed not to bundle any software at all, as part of the agreement they signed the last time they were hauled into court on antitrust charges. Much as convicted child molesters in some jurisdictions are not allowed to go near a school, Microsoft at the time was not allowed to go near non-OS markets with their OS. That was a result of a specific punishment directed at Microsoft, but you seem to have gotten the idea that it represented the law for everybody.
Lastly, I'm tired of being called a liar by someone who is clearly not very well informed, not inclined to do any of their own legwork, not inclined to be civil and either not inclined to understand what I write or not able to do so. We are also increasingly off-topic. So feel free to call me any names you like, but unless you drag this sub-thread back on topic with something that demonstrates some significant effort or knowledge of the topic on your part I'm done with you.
She was scared of some of the characters - didn't like them at all!
