On my youtube recommended list, I found a deposition of Bill Gates from the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit of 1998-2000. It was labeled comedy. :p
Here's some information in a NY Times article on the case.
Out of curiosity, I watched it and became engrossed. It was like watching a game of cat and mouse with the attorneys and Bill Gates.
When I went to look at the outcome of the case, I read a few articles written a decade later that brought up the issue that in hindsight, the case wasn't really necessary. The monopoly that Microsoft had supposedly started would have been broken up by the change in technology from desktops to mobiles, and other innovations in technology that made the difference in the hold that Microsoft had on the competition. The lawsuit wasn't necessary.
That has implications for future cases of monopoly by technology companies.
In the future, should the government get involved in monopoly cases of technology companies or just allow companies to innovate around the monopoly? Was the Microsoft lawsuit necessary?
I was actually the last person at Sun Microsystems/JavaSoft to speak in a civil tone to Microsoft before big Java lawsuit. This was before the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit, but it laid the foundation for it. Basically, my job was to test every implementation of Java to make sure that it complied, 100%, with the spec. Companies submitted their code to me, I ran a suite of tests against their code, and any functions which didn't return the right data were flagged, and the implementation was deemed non-compliant. The company then had to go away and fix their problems and resubmit to us for testing again. Microsoft knew there were three specific function calls in the JavaVM that would destroy Windows. These three calls were what would allow application portability across any platform. Write a Java app on one computer, and run it literally ANYWHERE. Computers. Set-top boxes. Dumb terminals. Anywhere. Over a series of months, MS submitted their JavaVM to me many times, as they made progress. There would be a list of 20 failures, let's say, and they would submit a new release that fixed 17 of those, and introduced a couple new bugs. They'd fix the bugs, submit again, and all but three tests would clear. EVERYONE knew what was going on. Me. My boss. My contact at Microsoft. But we all played the game and pretended everything would be fine. Then Microsoft released Internet Explorer with Java. And the same day they submitted their final JavaVM for approval to me. It failed those three tests. (We all knew it would.) So I sat in a conference room on a conference call with my guy at Microsoft. We had become friends, because we were techies, and enjoyed working together, and had a good relationship. I said, "So Russ, I tested the last implementation, and it is still failing these three tests." Russ: "Yeah, I know." Me: "I also noticed that Microsoft released their Java-compatible version of Internet Explorer today, and it isn't compatible. It fails those tests. And you are using our "Java Compatible" logo, in contravention of the contract you signed." Russ: "Yeah, I know. I'd like to introduce you to our chief legal counsel, ____________." Me: "Hi __________. I'd like to introduce you to Sun Microsystems' chief legal counsel, ________." Russ: "It's been nice working with you." Me: "You too, my friend." And then the 12 lawyers in the room asked me to leave. Microsoft continued shipping their disabled version of Java, all while taking out ads saying how compatible and amazing it was. So people would take their Java app and try to run it on their Windows box, and ... hey! It doesn't work! Microsoft would scratch their head, and feign ignorance, and deflect, and say, "Well, geez. Looks like Java really isn't very good at all!" Then, about 3 months later, they completely re-engineered their implementation of the JavaVM, added about 30 Windows-only calls that couldn't work on any other platform. They documented these calls just like they were standard "Java-approved" calls, and then played dumb when people called and said their app wouldn't run on any other Java-equipped platform. Within 6 months, Microsoft had destroyed the promise of Java, and then funded the development of "JavaScript", which was copyright infringement, and completely unrelated to Java, but their marketing machine was huge, and the confusion they sewed in the industry destroyed the promise of Java. So Apple took them to court for monopolistic practices. And I became disenchanted with the tech industry, left the country, and went to work for a newspaper in Eastern Europe. So yeah... fuck Microsoft.
Meh. It was in contravention of contracts that Microsoft signed in good faith. Then Sun and Microsoft went to court and fought that battle for a DECADE. They were even going to fly me back to the USA from where I was living in Budapest to testify... then I never heard another word from them. Then, Sun and Microsoft settled. Then Oracle bought the dregs of Sun at a garage sale one day in Silicon Valley, and now... well... we have applications running in web browsers built by Google and Apple.... that run software languages that were designed and written out of spite.
This adds a layer to my understanding of reality. Something so ubiquitous and underlying a lot coming out of two big guys brawling over who will screw the other up harder, better, faster, stronger. But wait: you say "languages", plural? What are the other ones?
Well, ASP, .NET, and C# are all attempts to do the same thing, just generations apart. And they are all built upon the same wrong-headed Microsoft thinking: "Lock 'em into our platform and they'll never escape!" It's totally immaterial nowadays. But there is some history there, and us grumpy old men still hold grudges against perfectly capable languages (C#) because of the fires they were forged in.
Well, we all knew what was going on. Microsoft Windows was THE dominant OS, and was Microsoft's bread and butter. But the OS was utter shit, and nobody wanted to use it. They wanted to use the Mac OS, or move to the client-server model of "dumb terminals" or "set top boxes". So MS had to keep people beholden to their OS. If Java worked, then it wouldn't matter what OS you ran... you could buy any program and run it on any Java-compatible OS. MS couldn't let that happen. Their software was bloated shit, but you HAD to use it. There was no choice. As soon as a viable choice came out, MS was going to lose a LOT of money. We all knew it came down to these three functions in the JavaVM. If MS implemented them, they would have shot themselves in the foot, and would bleed out. But Java was the sweetheart of the tech industry... the big promise... the future of technology. So MS had to SEEM like they were on-board with it, all the while working in the background to undermine the entire concept. This is where they came up with their "Embrace And Expand" strategy, where they would adopt the latest sweetheart technology, then add a bunch of Window-only features, thereby destroying the new technology and locking their uses into the Windows OS again. They did this with innumerable products and technologies. It's why Internet Explorer was such garbage, and still is today... it supports all these "standards" that Microsoft has perverted with Windows-specific code. ASP, .NET, C#, ActiveX... everything they have ever "innovated" is a failure on any platform other than Windows, because you never know if the call you are making is supported anywhere other than the MS platform. (Shit, they bought Bungie - a hugely successful MAC gaming company - and their VERY NEXT RELEASE of the software was Windows-only. Most the team fled. Didn't even wait for their MS stock to vest.) So yeah... MS was the 800lb gorilla that we had to make nicey-nice with, if we wanted Java to become the worldwide standard for OS-agnostic software applications. We had hoped that all the publicity, all the co-marketing we did, all the presentations, would eventually force them to implement those last three functions, despite the fact that it would ultimately hurt their business. But with Java running everywhere, seamlessly, the entire market could change for EVERYONE... there would be new ways to "win", and MS would be at the forefront of that. But, instead of choosing to go for pushing the industry forward and embracing innovation, MS went with entrenching and creating a decade worth of utterly shit OSes. Thanks, Microsoft. (98, Bob, Me, 2000, Vista... and on and on and on and on...)
.. and thereby gave away the server, and scientific computing, and embedded applications including cell phones and tablets, and... If the film effects industry had waiting a few years to jump ship from SGI, and so had linux as a viable platform rather than getting stuck with NT, Microsoft's ecosystem wouldn't have any interesting applications at all. So, yeah, thanks Microsoft, if you hadn't been more short sighted you might not be completely below my radar today. And that would be terrible.But, instead of choosing to go for pushing the industry forward and embracing innovation, MS went with entrenching and creating a decade worth of utterly shit OSes.
Can you imagine the juggernaut Microsoft could have been if they had embraced the change, and the internet? Of course, it's all wild-eyed speculation on par with "What if the nazi's had won WWII?", but it's still amazing to think of what they could have been if they hadn't gone the fear-filled and entrenched route, and instead opened up and empowered people.
A couple things I don't understand about your comment. Maybe this is my lack of understanding of the technology parts. From what I understand, there's hardware and there's software. When you buy hardware, you can strip the software if you want to use some other interface to make the computer work. How would Microsoft put a compiler in a computer that couldn't be stripped out to use another program? As to this particular lawsuit, that's not my understanding of what happened. This lawsuit was about business practices that Microsoft used to lock out their competitors out of the browser market. Your comment touches less on the Microsoft situation and more about whether antitrust lawsuits in general for technology products are necessary. If there was a piece of software or technology that would force users to use their product, would that be considered a monopoly? In a sense, isn't that the nature of competition that other companies are free to create a product that would break the stranglehold on the other company's product? Disclaimer: I tried to untwist my panties, but I think I like them that way. :p
The simple version is that, if you make the hardware and the software, you can put stuff in the hardware that only your software can talk to. (Because nobody else knows it exists, or because the hardware is looking for an enabling code that only your app can generate, etc.) It is kinda hard to get your head around nowadays, with 80% of all software running in a web browser. Bigger picture: Yes, the lawsuit had to happen. That broke the mold and allowed other platforms to come into existence. Without it, we wouldn't have been able to reach critical mass on tablets or smartphones, because MS software STILL sucks on those... and they've been out for years.
If I understand correctly, Microsoft agreed to open up its API such that Firefox and eventually Chrome and Opera could provide the same level of integration as Explorer. That basically allowed other browsers to exist on Windows without being rendered crippleware by Microsoft. That Microsoft lost their massive monopoly has more to do with the clueless fucktard that is Steve Ballmer than the Microsoft anti-trust. Consider: Microsoft had, effectively, the e-reader, the smartphone, the office suite and the tablet unopposed in 2000 and by 2014 they were a joke in everything but Office, where they're fighting Google for marketshare.
That makes sense. A lot of the testimony revolved around Microsoft's efforts to destroy Netscape. I wonder if it would have made a difference if Microsoft hadn't given the ability to Firefox and the other browsers to exist on Windows. I got the feeling (from listening to the deposition) that people thought that the browser was the window into the internet and without it, all access to the internet would be lost. It was as if Microsoft held the key to the portal of the internet. I also got the feeling that Bill Gates was trying to say that it didn't work like that. I listened to an interview with Steve Jobs where he explained that the reason he went after the peripherals and devices market was that he knew that Microsoft didn't care about it. He knew that he couldn't fight Microsoft head to head, so he went in through the back door. He could put a new OS on a new device and Microsoft wouldn't fight him on it. Microsoft was too large and too committed to their existing projects to change directions quickly enough to fight Apple when the market changed direction. That's the reason I wonder whether the lawsuit was necessary. In the technology world, there's always a way to fight an existing technology because it's intellectual property, not a physical asset. Monopolies with physical assets are more difficult to break because once the ownership of all the assets is in one company's hands, it's hard to get enough resources to fight that. But with technology, it only takes another better idea for the market to shift.If I understand correctly, Microsoft agreed to open up its API such that Firefox and eventually Chrome and Opera could provide the same level of integration as Explorer. That basically allowed other browsers to exist on Windows without being rendered crippleware by Microsoft.
That Microsoft lost their massive monopoly has more to do with the clueless fucktard that is Steve Ballmer than the Microsoft anti-trust. Consider: Microsoft had, effectively, the e-reader, the smartphone, the office suite and the tablet unopposed in 2000 and by 2014 they were a joke in everything but Office, where they're fighting Google for marketshare.
Not sure how old you are, but 'round 2000 not only was Microsoft ascendant but everybody hated them for it. We're talking Clippie-era Microsoft, when pretty much every problem your computer had was related to ActiveX, Word and Excel macros would suddenly stop working because Microsoft and there was fuckall else you could run. Linux? Don't make me laugh. Apple? ...yeah, you're going to use that for business. At the time it still ran OS9, the least-loved mongrel operating system to ever grace a RISC processor. Microsoft was the Ma Bell of 2000 - a big, heinous behemoth that made money not through innovation but through stifling competition. Was the lawsuit necessary? Hard to say. Was it inevitable? Absolutely.
My first introduction to Linux was a whole issue off Boot Magazine dedicated to it, including two CDs and instructions on how to use it. I ran out of things to play with and said "cool toy but Meh." That was in I think 98?
I started with FreeBSD, having seen it mentioned on the ftp.cdrom.com MOTD while looking for Doom mods. I don't remember when that was, but looking for Doom mods was a thing people were doing so, you know, the stone age. I switched to linux relatively late, Best Buy was selling shrinkwrapped Red Hat and Suse boxes by then.