Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: What the Web Wants

Author:Tucker Goodrich
Posted:6/8/2000; 9:28:28 AM
Topic:Re: What the Web Wants
Msg #:17648
Prev/Next:17647 / 17649

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting editorial (sorry, subscription only) this morning. The writer was C. Boyden Gray, who "was President Bush's White House counsel. His law firm represents the Association for Competitive Technologies, a Microsoft supported trade association." Now you know who he is... but he makes an interesting point:

"In fact, the browser war is not turning out the way Judge Jackson assumed it would. The day after he issued his conclusions of law in April, AOL announced a dramatic upgrade of Netscape. It intends to switch from Explorer to Navigator in January, when its contract with Microsoft expires. Since AOL dominates Internet access with approximately 50% of the market, its switch to Navigator will restore Netscape's dominance of the browser market in the same way as its earlier choice of Explorer dethroned Navigator."

Therefore, "If Judge Jackson were to hold a hearing on remedies, he would immediately face three problems with his central finding of predatory innovation arising out of the browser war. First, he would have to let in evidence showing that Netscape, not Internet Explorer, is now winning that war. This would undermine, if not obliterate, his monopoly maintenance finding."

Gray asserts this is the reason Jackson refused to hold a hearing on remedies--there's no case any more.

Has anyone heard anything about this? If this is true, then viable competition exists in the browser war. If the majority of users are going to be using a non-Microsoft browser, what harm has Microsoft caused?

Whom have they hurt?

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:55:19 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.