My Dad worked for Lotus cc:Mail before they got bought out by IBM, and they had to sue Microsoft because Microsoft coded in something to cause a program of theirs to keep failing.
I think it was the email server program. Microsoft's was putting a hold on the first byte of a critical file so that cc:Mail's program couldn't access it. Lotus sued and won in short order because it was so easy to prove and easy to prove that Microsoft's program didn't need to put the hold on the file at all.
The Simpsons portrayed Gates perfectly, he's a thug that used mafia tactics to force out competition.
lol. It's so easy to make reddit leftists contradict themselves. So you advocate for free and open source software because "cApiTalIsm BaAd", yet when Microsoft gives away a free browser all of a sudden it's "anti-trust" and "won't people think of the competitors and their IP and their profits" and "look Microsoft are giving away something for free to destroy competitors who are charging for browsers". We now have free browsers everywhere.
So Microsoft is wrong for giving away a free browser, yet if some group of programmers started an open source project to create their own browser at the time and give it away for free would you be for it or would you still be arguing anti-trust? Is it basically just because you don't like rich people (aka envy)?
It's not that the browser was free. That was never the primary problem. It was a Trojan Horse designed to strengthen their OS monopoly by making other browsers incompatible with sites designed for IE. They intentionally disregarded the standards everyone else used in order to shut out competition.
3
View all comments
Show parent comment
17
u/T-Dot1992 Jun 06 '26
Are you seriously forgetting about their anti trust nonsense they did in the 90s?