WinXP SP2 delayed; anti-trust issues to arise?

[Ned]

On the issue of why MS may continue to include IE in Windows - I believe they convinced everyone that it is "built in" and is non removable. The DC Circuit opinion says so as well.

You do know, of course, that one cannot remove IE from Windows XP. Recently, this caused a real problem for me when IE and some other program became corrupt and IE became nofunctional. My OS became non functional. I ended up having to wipe the disk clean and do a clean reinstall. I lost years of tax and quicken data in the process - all thanks to IE.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
You do know, of course, that one cannot remove IE from Windows XP. Recently, this caused a real problem for me when IE and some other program became corrupt and IE became nofunctional. My OS became non functional. I ended up having to wipe the disk clean and do a clean reinstall. I lost years of tax and quicken data in the process - all thanks to IE.

Wow -- that was really stupid of you.

Did everyone notice how low Ned's arguments have begun sinking? He started off strong with bull**** that sounded almost reasonable, then used a link to a PDF file to help solidify his case, only to have it easily tear down everything we've been talking about for the last two pages.

And now? Now he's sunk to anecdotal rhetoric about why IE is evil, even though he demonstrates just how stupid he is with computers by admitting he reinstalled the entire OS to fix IE, and didn't even back up his data beforehand. And somehow, reinstalling an OS wiped his data? He must've reformatted, too. Genius.

[Ned]

Asher, my god, but you cannot read, can you. The DC Cir. reversed and remanded the tying issue to deternmine the issye of tying under the so-called "rule of reason" standard rather than under a stricter "per se" standard. They did not find that Microsoft had not attempted to monopolize the browser market.

Regardless, the bundling was found to be illegal under the OS monopolization holding. That it continues is because of the settlement and because of the MS integrated it into Windows XP.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
Asher, my god, but you cannot read, can you. The DC Cir. reversed and remanded the tying issue to deternmine the issye of tying under the so-called "rule of reason" standard rather than under a stricter "per se" standard. They did not find that Microsoft had not attempted to monopolize the browser market.

No, apparently I cannot read!
Because to me, this looks like the PDF of yours says:

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s conclusion that Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the market for browsers

Which seems to fly in the face of your comment that:

They did not find that Microsoft had not attempted to monopolize the browser market.

So who is more correct about what the Court ruled, the Court, or Ned?

Regardless, the bundling was found to be illegal under the OS monopolization holding.

Funny, the PDF you mentioned explicitly says otherwise...

You do understand that most of Jackson's rulings, including that one, were reversed, right? You are aware of that?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Asher

Wow -- that was really stupid of you.

Did everyone notice how low Ned's arguments have begun sinking? He started off strong with bull**** that sounded almost reasonable, then used a link to a PDF file to help solidify his case, only to have it easily tear down everything we've been talking about for the last two pages.

And now? Now he's sunk to anecdotal rhetoric about why IE is evil, even though he demonstrates just how stupid he is with computers by admitting he reinstalled the entire OS to fix IE, and didn't even back up his data beforehand. And somehow, reinstalling an OS wiped his data? He must've reformatted, too. Genius.

I couldn't back the data up after the problem occurred. This is first time this kind of thing ever happened to me. I am now backing things up.

And yes, after many different attempts to reinstall Windows XP and IE, I ended up reformatting and reinstalling. Nothing else worked.

[Ned]

Asher, the legal summary is about the DC Circuit opinion, not about the Jackson opinion. Further, the bundling of IE was found to be an "illegal" practice that supported Microsoft's illegal OS monopolization effort. The separate tying count was overturned because Jackson used the wrong legal standard. The DC Circuit did not decide the tying issue on appeal with the correct legal standard, but simply remanded to the lower court.

On remand, the US dropped the tying count in order to avoid a retrial on liability. They instead focused on the remedy and the settlement.

The bottom line remains that integration and bundling was found to be illegal. I am sure that Microsoft settled with AOL/Netscape and paid big bucks on the strength of this finding by the DC Circuit.

As to IE continuing to ship with Windows, as I said, the fact of its non removability was established at trial. Microsoft, though, has to permit companies like Dell to make it a "background" application. As well, there is a new program access feature in Windows that permits one to "disable" access to IE. (It doesn't really.)

The bottom line, really, is that Mircrosoft "cheated" to make IE the dominant browser. Whether IE could have become dominant without this boost by MS is something we will never know.

[Q Classic]

nice way of dealing with arguments, yavoon:

I still didnt say u could resopnd to me. hush.

"LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

in any case, more power to microsoft with their bundling of the av software they bought in romania. (it's actually a decent package.) however, i honestly don't think that symantec and mcafee are in any serious danger: they make most of their money off of corporate sales, something which microsoft's offering will do very little to hurt.
Who am I going to trust? The industry standard, NAV Server, which can push invisible clients out to everyone in the network, continuously update both code and definitions automatically? Or the built-in AV solution which would require far more administration at the local level?
Let Microsoft do this. I have no problem with it, as long as it comes disabled by default, just like their firewall. Just because Windows has a firewall and virus software doesn't mean that it'll drive the biggies out. Symantec and McAfee are here to stay, both in their AV offerings and Firewall offerings, on the consumer and on the corporate level.