Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


The Netscape matter is interesting because they began by giving their
browser away then, when they had 84% market share, began charging for it,
which would seem to be an exercise in monopolistic power... but maybe no
one sued. Then, when Microsoft gives away their browser, Netscape brings
suit against Microsoft for doing the same thing they had done to get an 84%
market share.

Amusing, eh?


Netscape wasn't seen as the bad guy; Microsoft was. The difference
between subjective perception and reality is sometimes enormous.

You betcha. So much for 'blind' justice

It gets even more interesting when you look at the 'ICON on the desktop'
issue. One could always install Netscape on a Windows machine, and sell it
that way, but what Netscape wanted was for OEMs, with, one imagines, a bit
of prodding from Netscape, the holder of monopoly power in the browser
market, to be able to *remove* I.E. from Microsoft's own product, not
simply coexist, and sell it with Netscape *only*.

One way of looking at it might be to say that Netscape was complaining
about Microsoft 'infringing' on their 'free use of monopoly power'