It's not the stability of the OS that is the issue of the case.
It's not the fight between "openness" and "closedness" of the source code.
It's not the quality of the software that was offered by the competition.
The judge has now ruled that Microsoft was acting outside the law when Microsoft added an Internet web browser component to their operating system.
They were not deemed outside the law when Windows 2.1 included the "Multiple Document Interface" that was implemented first in Microsoft Word. They weren't scoffed by a judge when Windows implemented TrueType font technology after Adobe Type Manager kept crashing the graphics layer of Windows 3.0. Nobody questioned the ethics of bundling a thousand generic "uni" drivers for printers, video and modem cards onto the Windows 3.1 installation disks, which meant that hardware could run without millions of calls to hardware manufacturers for updated drivers. Not a soul whispered 'contempt' when Windows 95 included the Rich Edit control, that simple thing (again from Word) that allowed *any* app writer to develop a program that understood italics and boldface.
But when Microsoft adds an HTML rendering control, and a URL underlining text style, to its operating system, it is deemed against the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
Nevermind that all the Windows app writers outside of Utah commend the addition to the standard libraries of code features.
Let us, by extension, tell Ford that they must now de-package the Ford-made windshield component from their cars; we wish to bolster competition and let all the other mom and pop windshield manufacturers a chance at that market. After all, the windshield is hardly a requisite feature for an automobile? Tires, motor and seat, that's all you're allowed now, Ford.
I do not think you mean what you think you mean. (Score:2)
It's not the stability of the OS that is the issue of the case.
It's not the fight between "openness" and "closedness" of the source code.
It's not the quality of the software that was offered by the competition.
The judge has now ruled that Microsoft was acting outside the law when Microsoft added an Internet web browser component to their operating system.
They were not deemed outside the law when Windows 2.1 included the "Multiple Document Interface" that was implemented first in Microsoft Word. They weren't scoffed by a judge when Windows implemented TrueType font technology after Adobe Type Manager kept crashing the graphics layer of Windows 3.0. Nobody questioned the ethics of bundling a thousand generic "uni" drivers for printers, video and modem cards onto the Windows 3.1 installation disks, which meant that hardware could run without millions of calls to hardware manufacturers for updated drivers. Not a soul whispered 'contempt' when Windows 95 included the Rich Edit control, that simple thing (again from Word) that allowed *any* app writer to develop a program that understood italics and boldface.
But when Microsoft adds an HTML rendering control, and a URL underlining text style, to its operating system, it is deemed against the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
Nevermind that all the Windows app writers outside of Utah commend the addition to the standard libraries of code features.
Let us, by extension, tell Ford that they must now de-package the Ford-made windshield component from their cars; we wish to bolster competition and let all the other mom and pop windshield manufacturers a chance at that market. After all, the windshield is hardly a requisite feature for an automobile? Tires, motor and seat, that's all you're allowed now, Ford.