http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2783293,00.html
<< You may have thought that Microsoft Corp.'s antitrust lawsuit was a battle over software, but anyone who buys Intel-compatible computers can find cause for genuine anger in the June 28th Court of Appeals ruling in this case.
Almost buried in pages of discussion of the Internet "browser wars" are a few short paragraphs about Microsoft's offer to Intel of a mutually beneficial bargain, with Microsoft withholding support for AMD's 3DX instruction set in return for Intel's withdrawal from cross-platform multimedia efforts. To protect its own software monopoly, in other words, Microsoft bargained to limit customer choice in hardware as well.
"If Intel has a real problem with us supporting [AMD]," warned Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, "then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are." The appellate ruling concludes, without reservation, "we affirm the conclusion that Microsoft's threats to Intel were exclusionary, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act." >>
:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|
<< You may have thought that Microsoft Corp.'s antitrust lawsuit was a battle over software, but anyone who buys Intel-compatible computers can find cause for genuine anger in the June 28th Court of Appeals ruling in this case.
Almost buried in pages of discussion of the Internet "browser wars" are a few short paragraphs about Microsoft's offer to Intel of a mutually beneficial bargain, with Microsoft withholding support for AMD's 3DX instruction set in return for Intel's withdrawal from cross-platform multimedia efforts. To protect its own software monopoly, in other words, Microsoft bargained to limit customer choice in hardware as well.
"If Intel has a real problem with us supporting [AMD]," warned Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, "then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are." The appellate ruling concludes, without reservation, "we affirm the conclusion that Microsoft's threats to Intel were exclusionary, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act." >>
:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|
Facebook
Twitter