undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdiffeomorphism6y ago0 comments

> If that was relevant, Microsoft wouldn't be attacked for bundling IE.

They never were. But is very successful and impressive PR by MS that you think that this is what the problem was.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

jevgeni6y ago· 2 in thread

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/504251/downlo...

Those devious Microsoft PR execs at the Justice Department...

diffeomorphismOP6y ago

That is why you need to read and not just skim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] was a noted American antitrust law case in which the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.

jevgeni6y ago

Mate, you are hilarious! From the Wikipedia article you cited:

“ The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system.”

So yeah, follow your own advise. Because if you would, you'd find gems like this in the actual court case I cited:

"After trial, the court found Microsoft had violated Section 2 by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems (“OSs”) and by unlawfully attempting to monopolize the market for internet browsers, and that it had violated Section 1 by illegally tying its Windows operating system and its Internet Explorer (“IE”) browser."

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse