The Journal of Crime & Punishment
Software Piracy
page 9
page 10
page 11
Go back to page 1:
SOFTWARE PIRACY
- US antitrust law
- Antitrust, a 2001 film about "NURV", a large software company that presents a fictionalized Microsoft
- Browser Wars
- Criticism of Microsoft
- Embrace, extend and extinguish
- European Union Microsoft competition case
- Microsoft litigation
- Removal of Internet Explorer
"Here is the important point.
In DOS 5 there are two types of memory. Expanded memory, or actual physical memory - or RAM, and Extended memory, which is Virtual Memory on the chip itself, which is much faster to access. At that time Extended Memory was addressed or called as The Microsoft Virtual Machine. After the browser was introduced it was renamed the "Java Virtual Machine". It is not just a matter of changing a file or directory name.
Microsoft owns a lot of the essential software the computer uses. So does Sun/JavaScript. The browser is written in JavaScript. To interface, the Operating System is written in a higher level language (C++ and "compiled" to interface with the browser. The browser window is the window you see on your computer screen. The browser contains a lot of the Operating System's essential software, such as the mouse, which used to be part of DOS.
The point is this, and you may find it irrelevant or contentious, but notwithstanding - part of the browser software is the Timing System, which is also essential. I may or may not own it, depending on what I can prove in court. Stephen Joyce says it is none of his business and I should take it to (a civil) court, but I can't as I have a property manager who says I don't want to."the United States v. Microsoft antitrust civil actions
United States v. Microsoft Corporation 253 F.3d 34 (2001) is a US antitrust law case, ultimately settled by the Department of Justice, where Microsoft Corporation was accused of becoming a monopoly and engaging in abusive practices contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890 sections 1 and 2. It was initiated on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor.
The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.
CPJ 16th May 2014
The arguments appear confusing. Those who were around in the late 1990s will remember the leapfrogging of the release of various browser versions between Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape.
It turns out that the browser is written in a language called JavaScript, which is not owned by Microsoft, but by a company called Sun Microsystems.
Judgment
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.[13] Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision.[14]
On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.[14][15]