[grobinson]

I don't quite see what interaction over the Internet has to do with the issue. Microsoft Office is regularly bundled with new Windows computers as a trial, or basic license. Could that not be seen as anti competitive?

I could argue that the TCP/IP stack is "bundled" with the operating system, and it's something that's very difficult to change (if not impossible without recompiling the kernel). Network engineers have probably had to put up with different TCP/IP stacks using different congestion control algorithms, impacting fairness of bandwidth usage on their networks. So by the same pretense, shouldn't TCP/IP stacks require the same choice that Microsoft were required to offer with browsers?

[mgkimsal]

There wasn't a whole lot of evidence that MS was trying to explicitly kill for-profit TCP stack vendors.

[grobinson]

Well that's true, my straw man doesn't quite stand up in this case. However it still doesn't explain why Internet Explorer was the target when there is so much other software that was bundled with Windows, which too had for profit competitors? Those people who exclusively used Internet Explorer as "the Internet" would too have used the bundled mail client (I can't remember what it was called back in the day) exclusively too and seen that as "the email"?

[mgkimsal]

I don't think there was anything else bundled with Windows that explicitly targeted other for-profit competitors at that time.

Dr-DOS and the Berkley screen saver stuff are two other situations that spring to mind, both of which resulted in legal cases, but the size/scope of MS by the time the Netscape thing came around was probably the tipping point (considering their previous behavior already demonstrated a pattern which showed no signs of stopping).

[nightski]

It is amusing however how it is a practice now that all major technology companies partake in. For example Google & Apple constantly take ideas from a 3rd party apps and integrate them for free into Android/iOS.

[dragonwriter]

The legal issue wasn't "taking ideas from 3rd party apps and integrating them for free into" Windows.

It was taking anticompetitive steps to defend an existing monopoly, and to leverage an existing monopoly to monopolize another market.

Its like complaining that one person gets arrested for shooting a gun when another doesn't, not noting that what the first person was actually arrested for was murder by way of a gun, and what the second person was doing was shooting targets on a shooting range.

[nightski]

Except would you not agree that once they are integrated for free into the platform the 3rd party apps generally die?

[dragonwriter]

The original complaint for the US case remains available online from the DoJ: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm

There are four bases for the complaint, two under Sec. 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and two under Sec. 2 of the Act.

1. Unlawful Exclusive Dealing and Other Exclusionary Agreements in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (deals with ISPs, Internet Content Providers, and others that traded favorable promotional placement in the then-monopoly Windows OS for commitments not to license, promote, or distribute non-Microsoft products, particularly browsers.)

2. Unlawful Tying in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (distributing the browser, a separate product based on market demand, etc., with its monopoly Windows OS system.)

3. Monopolization of the PC Operating Systems Market in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (willfully maintaining monopoly power over that market by "by anticompetitive and unreasonably exclusionary conduct.")

4. Attempted Monopolization of the Internet Browser Market in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (targetting "software products that have the potential to compete with or facilitate the development of products to compete with PC operating systems and thereby to erode Microsoft's Windows operating system monopoly" by way of "including tying and unreasonably exclusionary agreements, in order to obtain a monopoly in the Internet browser market".)

Note that a key issue in all of these is Microsoft's then-existing monopoly power in the PC OS market and how it was defending or leveraging that in different markets -- without that monopoly power, much of what they were doing would not have even arguably been an antitrust issue.

Browser+OS wasn't the issue, it was one of the mechanisms -- unreasonable and anticompetitive action to maintain an existing monopoly, and to leverage that monopoly into a monopoly in another market, was the issue.

> However it still doesn't explain why Internet Explorer was the target when there is so much other software that was bundled with Windows, which too had for profit competitors?

Because the browser was the area where the government felt they had the best case for two key features: (1) that the tying, etc., was intended to leverage the existing monopoly to monopolize another market, and, (2) that the tying, etc., was intended to neutralize a threat to Microsoft's existing monopoly.

Bundling two products together isn't generally illegal. Doing so as a means to leverage a monopoly in one market to monopolize another, or to defuse a threat to an existing monopoly (and, a fortiori, to serve both purposes simultaneously) is a different story.

> Those people who exclusively used Internet Explorer as "the Internet" would too have used the bundled mail client (I can't remember what it was called back in the day) exclusively too and seen that as "the email"?

The bundled email client wasn't an issue because it didn't exist yet -- Outlook Express wasn't bundled with Windows until Windows 98, which was still pending at the time the lawsuit was drafted (the complaint notes at para. 57: "Beginning in or around June 1998, Microsoft will introduce to the market the latest version of its operating system for Intel-based PCs, Windows 98.")