Can you elaborate a little on those?
The ironic thing is that the original Judgment against Microsoft, and the order to break it up into two parts would have been the absolute BEST thing for us, and Microsoft itself. Getting the neutral Windows OS away from the rest of the clowns up there into a separate place where they would answer to everyone would have been ideal. Most importantly it would have removed the irresistible temptation for Microsoft to use the OS as leverage to steer the Sheeple into the Microverse as they are plotting as we speak. Windows would be far more cross platform friendly and so many developer avenues would not have turned into dead-ends. Unfortunately the government spent so much time hammering them over Netscape ( thanks a lot Barksdale ) that they actually drummed up sympathy for Microsoft. I know this because I was one of them ( boy was I wrong! ). It seemed really dumb to complain about a free browser in the OS because other browsers worked fine. And the downside of making them remove it meant opening the door to every other non-essential part of the OS ( Calc, Notepad, etc ) to also be challenged by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet. Meanwhile the backroom OEM deals got stepped over chasing Netscape down a rabbit hole. ~sigh~ [...]
The main thrust of the DoJ action, at least publicly, was centered around Netscape being somehow strangled by Microsoft including MSIE in Windows. Barksdale was testifying before Congress, all the Netscape fanboys were up in arms, and Microsoft would need to be punished.
Ironically, this is the very point that kept me from supporting the breakup of Microsoft. People on my side of the argument felt that this was incredibly stupid and petty Government action, and it reeked of protecting a specific product, Netscape, and was extremely shortsighted. The reason that many felt this way was because of the dangerous precedent that would be set if MSIE was forced to be removed due to Government action. This is one of those times that an automobile analogy fits perfectly: "Telling Microsoft to not include MSIE in Windows is like telling car-makers to not include a radio
". After-market radios work just fine, and no-one is alleging car-makers or Microsoft is preventing after-market hardware or software from being installed later. The Netscape portion of the DoJ case should never have moved past that analogy because it is plain common sense.
Now if the Government did step in specifically using Netscape as an injured party and the remedy is to remove MSIE, then the door gets kicked wide open for every other part of the Operating System to be challenged and removed by anyone that produces a "competing" applet. Calculator, Notepad, Wordpad, Scandisk, Defrag, Paint, Media Player, etc. All of these and more would become subject to the whims of lawsuits and Government action and Windows could literally be reduced to a set of DLLs and Explorer.exe. We did not want all the other parts of Windows jettisoned because ACME Media Player or Harry's Calculator or Adobe Photoshop got butthurt by Windows applets. That's the reason so many people fought against the Netscape thing.
There is also the little matter of protectionism where the Federal Government would be protecting Netscape's business, a paid browser threatened by a free one, placing the Government in the odd position of serving its citizens by favoring a paid solution over a free one. And there's the more philosophical and political angle that points out that the Federal Government has no business selecting what products should win or lose, or what their price should be. These are more or less beside the point though, because as I said the Netscape portion of the case should never have went past the auto analogy because the mere presence of MSIE did not hurt Netscape.
So that explains the most prominent feature of the controversy, Netscape. However, if Microsoft did anything above and beyond merely including MSIE without sabotaging the ability for 3rd party after-market browsers, anything that gets into anticompetitive behavior, then all bets are obviously off. So, the bottom line about the most visible part of the case, Netscape, was this ... the mere inclusion of MSIE is not anticompetitive. Period. Clearly the case went much further, and if you read that Wikipedia extract you will see that they were obstinate, and frankly should have been held in contempt of court. The thing that bothers me the most is that in retrospect is that the Netscape fiasco looks now like a pea-shell game diversion! While thousands of hours were wasted pontificating over MSIE and Netscape, Microsoft was busy monopolizing the back channels of OEM distribution of Windows. So here we sit today with no actual competitors because they were
actually strangled out of the market ( Netscape was not ). And the consequence is this ... as Microsoft makes its anticompetitive move with Windows 8
and the wall-garden Store being slipped into non-Microsoft hardware at the OEM factory, those missing competitors are unable to show damage from the OEM monopoly. That's because ... they are missing.
In summary, whether it is the Government's or Microsoft's fault, the Netscape diversion allowed the OEM monopoly to flourish, so even though Microsoft lost, they really won. I hope people re-read that previous post, especially the Wikipedia excerpt and still contact the Government, because as the only remaining injured party, the people are the only ones that can start an action. In a perfect world the remedy would be the same, break out the neutral OS division from the company. Better yet, just ask them to release the x86 source code and let them go on their merry way producing a toy operating system for MetroTards.