Only seven months after its release, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 has captured 30 percent of the Web browser market. And while IE's gains are impressive, they're coming largely at the expense of one-time rival Netscape, which saw its share drop to under 7 percent, down from 12 percent the year before. IE 6 is currently the second most-often used Web browser on the Internet, while IE 5 is number one.
"The fast adoption rate for IE 6 has been a definite threat to Netscape's usage share," says Geoff Johnston, the vice president of product marketing for market researcher StatMarket. "Although it looked originally as though Netscape had an entrenched core user base, IE6 has managed to take significant market share. It's do or die time now for Netscape."
Availability of Over 1 Million Lines of Source Code for FreeBSD and Windows Underscores Microsoft's Commitment to Open Standards, Academia and Developers.
Demonstrating continuing commitment to academia, computer science research and the Shared Source Initiative, Microsoft Corp. today announced the availability of source code for its Shared Source CLI implementation. The Shared Source CLI source code implements the ECMA Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) and C# standards. It is available on the Microsoft Windows XP and FreeBSD operating systems. By delivering over 1 million lines of source code, the Shared Source CLI implementation will promote programming language innovation and XML Web services research.
A Microsoft Corp. attorney on Tuesday worked to discredit testimony by a Gateway Inc. executive, saying he was biased because AOL Time Warner Inc. holds a large chunk of the computer maker's stock. Microsoft's lawyer, Richard Pepperman, spent the morning throwing a barrage of questions at Gateway Group Counsel Anthony Fama in an effort to portray Fama as biased and ill- informed.
During his cross-examination Tuesday, Pepperman alleged Fama was biased because Microsoft rival, online services and media giant AOL Time Warner, has bought $600 million worth of Gateway stock since 1999. Fama said he did not know about AOL's investment. [yeah, right]
Pepperman grilled Fama on whether Gateway had directly gone to Microsoft with complaints about the price Gateway would pay for Windows under the settlement agreement. "As of today, Gateway still has not provided Microsoft with any additional comments or feedback?" Pepperman asked Fama. Fama responded that he did not know. [This guy don't know anything beside what AOL told him to say]
The federal judge in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case this morning invited the Justice Department to weigh in on the question of whether states that did not sign onto the department's proposed settlement deal with the company are entitled to pursue stiffer sanctions. The judge's request is yet another wrinkle in what already is a complex and unprecedented legal battle, one that will have constitutional implications.
Microsoft asserts that the states' case usurps the power of the Justice Department to enforce competition policy. The company acknowledges that states can sue as private parties in antitrust actions, but argues they cannot seek national sanctions that extend beyond those set by the United States.
An attorney for Microsoft Corp. argued in court on Monday that Red Hat Inc. had failed to popularize the Linux computer operating system because of its own shortcomings, not because of any interference from Microsoft. Cross-examining Red Hat Chief Technology Officer Michael Tiemann, Microsoft attorney Stephanie Wheeler said Red Hat had spent little money on research and development, and dedicated few of its employees to winning over software developers to write programs for Linux.
Wheeler showed U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly financial disclosures from Red Hat showing the company had spent $18.8 million on research in fiscal year 2001, a pittance compared to the R&D budgets of larger software companies. Nor does Red Hat have any "evangelists" on staff to convince software developers to write programs for Linux, Wheeler said.
Microsoft's lawyers say testimony about such technologies has no place in the final phase of a case that for four years has centered largely on Web browsers like Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. They are pressing Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to ban mention of server operating systems, hand-held devices, television set-top boxes and Web services, arguing that the states are trying to "muddy the record" and turn the remedy hearing into a new liability trial. Their opponents, however, insist these are the future battlegrounds where decisions in this case will count.
But the judge, who has received written briefs from both sides on the matter, has steadfastly refused to make a broad decision. Instead, she reminds the states about twice a day that she does not want to "go down the road of new anticompetitive conduct," but she does agree to consider the testimony in the context of an appropriate remedy.
But the judge has precious little legal precedent to guide her. Most antitrust cases are settled before this point, many remedies require a breakup the one option the appeals court strongly discouraged and the rapid evolution of technology may make restoring the conditions that existed before Microsoft's violations impossible or irrelevant.
Microsoft dismisses that notion as fanciful, and argued that Mr. Richards's testimony which described Microsoft's efforts to undermine the RealPlayer by withholding information had no place in the remedy trial. And Microsoft finds the upcoming testimony even more offensive. "Last week, there were issues that at least dealt with what the case was about," said Jim Densler, a Microsoft spokesman. "This week, we'll see a shift in witnesses that will discuss products that have nothing to do with this case whatsoever."
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly may be presiding over one of the most controversial legal battles in US history, but she's handling it with a grace and intelligence that sharply contrasts with the behavior of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who oversaw the original Microsoft antitrust trial. Unlike Jackson, Kollar-Kotelly appears to understand the technical issues revolving around the antitrust case, and she professes to spend hours each night studying these issues and the arguments made by both sides. Jackson's behavior in the first trial, meanwhile, landed him in hot water: The judge openly criticized Microsoft and often appeared to be on the verge of sleep during the trial.
Kollar-Kotelly said throughout the week that she thinks the states are taking "a very broad view" of what conduct they can address in seeking penalties. The states are not allowed to address issues that were not involved in their first case against Microsoft, which focused on the desktop computer operating system market. "I have concerns of you taking the same testimony and putting different labels on it," Kollar-Kotelly said.
Microsoft maintains the products have nothing to do with the current case, and the states only want to help its competitors. "This case was not about competition between forms of computing," Microsoft attorney John Warden said in court last week. "The demand is just for more, more, more."
Kollar-Kotelly said she was tired of proofreading for hearsay the written testimony offered by the states' witnesses. She threw out dozens of paragraphs of witness allegations that could not be corroborated.
Microsoft SQL Server was named the top database in overall solution provider satisfaction for the second year in a row in the 2002 Computer Reseller News (CRN) Channel Champions survey. Microsoft Corp. shares the overall No. 1 database spot and leads the industry in CRN's technical criteria by earning the best marks in product quality and reliability, price/performance, application support, XML support, and return on investment. This award confirms that SQL Server is the database of choice for customers and partners that seek a competitive advantage through their software solutions.
Efforts urging states to drop antitrust litigation against Microsoft are ramping up, and some candidates vying for key state political offices are raising concerns about campaign contributions as the trial's remedy proceedings begin Monday.
On Dec. 12, SBC Communications donated $12,000 to Lockyer's campaign. On June 25, 2001, Oracle made a $25,000 donation, and Oracle donated $25,000 in 2000. America Online made three donations totaling $3,000 in 2001, according to Lockyer's campaign filings.
But Californians suffer from a "general feeling of fatigue" when it comes to the Microsoft case, according to Sonia Arrison, director of the Center for Technology Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. "Combine that with the cost to taxpayers of continuing the case, especially in this economy, and Lockyer might do well to rethink his actions... As the election gets closer, the costs of continuing litigation concerning Microsoft will certainly be an issue," Arrison said via e-mail.