• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Microsoft a monopoly in the 1990s?

Was Microsoft a monopoly back in the 1990s?


  • Total voters
    18
I am saying that in the specific instance of the Microsoft monopoly. patents were not the cause.

How can you have a monopoly on any sort of software without patents?
 
How can you have a monopoly on any sort of software without patents?

Have you been paying attention to the thread? Microsoft is a monopoly, a fact that was upheld in a court of law. Microsoft has not destroyed competition using software patents. They have stomped out competition with broken API's and by strong-arming OEM's.
 
How can you have a monopoly on any sort of software without patents?

I already explained it in my last post, but I will again. In the case of software, the derivative, which is executable software is created out of the human written programming called source code. What happens is people write software, than other software translated that human written software into machine code that a computer can understand. (there are interpreted languages, such as basic, but a person would never write an operating system out of an interpreted language, it always has to be compiled into machine code or else the computer could never boot, at least with current designs).

What microsoft's customers get is that translated programming. It is somewhat possible to take machine code and translate it back to human code, but the output leaves much to be desired, expecially in a very complex system, which as the windows operating system. Because of this "one way mirror" the people receiving the software (who did not have access to the original human code) had a very limited look into what windows actually does while its running on your computer. Because of this limited view, it has made it next to impossible to write compatible software that interacts with it. except for the software interconnects (called an applications programming interface or API) that allow data to pass from one program to another that microsoft published specifications for. An example of how an API would work is, lets say a program wants to write information to a file, windows does not give programs direct access to the disk, so the software makes a request to windows to write something to disk for it, windows accepts that request through the API and does the requested task.

Those APIs were at the heart of the lawsuit. The simple fact is that microsoft had create secret APIs that it did not publish the specifications to, which made its software superior to run on windows than third party software. This created an unfair advantage for microsoft.

Patents and copyrights never entered the picture, this is more akin to trade secrets actually.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft was a price setter, not a price taker in terms of their operating system and MS Office products.

People could have easily chosen other operating systems. They didn't, and they paid the price for it. That's not a monopoly, it sounds more like a fad.

But there would have been much more competition had those patents not been in place.
 
People could have easily chosen other operating systems. They didn't, and they paid the price for it. That's not a monopoly, it sounds more like a fad.

But there would have been much more competition had those patents not been in place.

The only other operating system available at the time that would run on consumer grade hardware (meaning, not 40k+ servers or engineering workstations) was OS/2, apple, and something else I can't remember (but it had good graphics for its day), all were a joke for the needs of even a small business network.

At that time, if you wanted to actually use a computer for the benefit of a company, it was a combination of unix (very expensive), netware (servers only), and windows (nt or 9x)

Also software patents didn't even get started until 1994, too late to the party in this particular scenario as well.
 
Last edited:
Those APIs were at the heart of the lawsuit. The simple fact is that microsoft had create secret APIs that it did not publish the specifications to, which made its software superior to run on windows than third party software. This created an unfair advantage for microsoft.

Patents and copyrights never entered the picture, this is more akin to trade secrets actually.

Patents enter into the picture when Microsoft makes its money off of its software. Patents are what make the trade secrets profitable in the first place.
 
Patents enter into the picture when Microsoft makes its money off of its software. Patents are what make the trade secrets profitable in the first place.

At this point, I am becoming convinced that you either did not read or understand what I have previously wrote. I specifically explained how software works and where the problem actually was.

I will state a third and final time THE SOURCE CODE IS THE TRADE SECRET AND THE PROBLEM WAS NOT PATENTS BUT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT PUBLISHED.

A low tech example of the same sort of thing is the coca-cola formula. The formula is locked in a vault and nobody outside the company can figure it out.

Also, just for kicks, I googled the 1998 microsoft lawsuit and the word patent doesn't even show up.
 
Last edited:
The only other operating system available at the time that would run on consumer grade hardware (meaning, not 40k+ servers or engineering workstations) was OS/2, apple, and something else I can't remember (but it had good graphics for its day), all were a joke for the needs of even a small business network.

At that time, if you wanted to actually use a computer for the benefit of a company, it was a combination of unix (very expensive), netware (servers only), and windows (nt or 9x)

Also software patents didn't even get started until 1994, too late to the party in this particular scenario as well.

The case was filed in 1998. Besides:

"The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted patents that may be referred to as software patents since at least the early 1970s."

Software patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The case was filed in 1998. Besides:

"The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted patents that may be referred to as software patents since at least the early 1970s."

Software patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1994 court case actually gave it teeth, before then the industry did not take it seriously. Also, as I just found out, if you google the 1998 microsoft case, the word patent does not show up.

Justice Department Files Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft for Unlawfully Monopolizing Computer Software Markets

You guys can keep believing your ridiculous fiction if you wish, but I have shown multiple times at this point that it has no basis in reality. It is obvious that you guys have no real knowledge of the case (and trust me, I do, I have been a techie for a LONG time, since I was 8) and all you have to go on is some weak correlation, nor do you actually seem to understand how computers, software, and software development actually works.
 
Last edited:
Without patents, all of those complaints would have been meaningless as competition would have not required all of those things that Microsoft wanted. None of what Microsoft was able to do is possible without patents. And of course, there were still alternatives, but people still chose Microsoft.
 
Without patents, all of those complaints would have been meaningless as competition would have not required all of those things that Microsoft wanted. None of what Microsoft was able to do is possible without patents. And of course, there were still alternatives, but people still chose Microsoft.

Go back and reread my posts on how software works, what the actual problems presented in the 1998 lawsuit were, read my analogy to the coke formula, think about what you just posted, realise how wrong you are (sorry for being rude, but your insistence on this, despite me explaining to you, in painstaking detail, what actually happened, is very frustrating on my part). Or else, please cite something specific about this case and how it relates to patents (and good luck). However, at this point, you cannot back up your statements with actual facts.

And no, there were not alternatives. The only two operating systems at the time that could truly work in a networked environment were windows and unix. It the same sense, one does not use a kitchen stove to run an industrial bakery. Sure its possible, but you will not stay in business long.
 
Last edited:
For anyone who claims that Microsoft uses software patents as the means of maintaining their monopoly, please show the court cases in which Microsoft sued its competitors in the OS market for patent infringement.
 
For anyone who claims that Microsoft uses software patents as the means of maintaining their monopoly, please show the court cases in which Microsoft sued its competitors in the OS market for patent infringement.

in 1999, microsoft sued tomtom over its version of linux over the use of FAT32 (a method of organizing hard drives). However, this had nothing to do with its monopoly status in the 90s, obviously (I don't think tomtom even existed back then). It was settled out of court, tomtom still uses FAT32 to read SD cards and nothing was accomplished for or against in terms of microsoft's position in the industry and market share.

Worst case, if microsoft won, the industry would have just started using another type of file organization on SD cards and the appropriate drivers would be loaded into windows when tomtom or whoever installs their software. Microsoft would have actually ended up being a net loser.
 
Last edited:
in 1999, microsoft sued tomtom over its version of linux over the use of FAT32 (a method of organizing hard drives). However, this had nothing to do with its monopoly status in the 90s, obviously (I don't think tomtom even existed back then). It was settled out of court, tomtom still uses FAT32 to read SD cards and nothing was accomplished for or against in terms of microsoft's position in the industry and market share.

You would be hard pressed to call Linux a real competitor as a consumer desktop OS back in '99.
 
You would be hard pressed to call Linux a real competitor as a consumer desktop OS back in '99.

My mistake, it was 2009, not 99. I brainfarted on the first digit.

Microsoft files patent lawsuit against TomTom over Linux-based GPS systems -- Engadget

I agree though. The first time I used Linux was a redhat version (before it became fedora core), redhat 7 or 8 I think and it was terrible. It was so bad, I uninstalled windows in order to force myself to use and learn it.
 
Last edited:
Go back and reread my posts on how software works, what the actual problems presented in the 1998 lawsuit were, read my analogy to the coke formula, think about what you just posted, realise how wrong you are (sorry for being rude, but your insistence on this, despite me explaining to you, in painstaking detail, what actually happened, is very frustrating on my part). Or else, please cite something specific about this case and how it relates to patents (and good luck). However, at this point, you cannot back up your statements with actual facts.

And no, there were not alternatives. The only two operating systems at the time that could truly work in a networked environment were windows and unix. It the same sense, one does not use a kitchen stove to run an industrial bakery. Sure its possible, but you will not stay in business long.

Some examples of monopolies that were broken up, and explains that they got to their large market share through increasing efficiency and lowering cost.
Anti-trust, Anti-truth - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

So now let's talk more specifically about Microsoft:

To arrive at a so-called monopoly market share, the trial court accepted a definition of the relevant market ("single user desktop PCs that use an Intel-compatible chip") that conveniently excluded all of the computers and networking software made by Microsoft's major rivals such as Apple, Sun, Novell, and a host of other companies. In addition, counting only licensed systems allowed Judge Jackson to exclude arbitrarily all of the operating systems sold at retail, those downloaded from the Web, and all "naked" computers shipped without any operating system installed at all. . . . If market share is meaningful at all in antitrust analysis (extremely doubtful), Microsoft's actual share of any realistic relevant market was less than 70% and not enough for any monopoly designation.

. . .

Nor was the Netscape browser ever unfairly "foreclosed" or "excluded" from the market; PC users downloaded millions of copies of Netscape's browser during the period of alleged exclusion by Microsoft.

A Politically Incorrect Guide to Antitrust Policy - D.T. Armentano - Mises Daily

So why did Microsoft have such a large market share? They made a good product. Sure, patents help, even if you can't point to a specific case, people would avoid trying to infringe on that patent. Again, no one was ever prevented from entering the market. Microsoft was just simply the best at the time. Any problems were due to patents.
 
Some examples of monopolies that were broken up, and explains that they got to their large market share through increasing efficiency and lowering cost.
Anti-trust, Anti-truth - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

So now let's talk more specifically about Microsoft:



A Politically Incorrect Guide to Antitrust Policy - D.T. Armentano - Mises Daily

So why did Microsoft have such a large market share? They made a good product. Sure, patents help, even if you can't point to a specific case, people would avoid trying to infringe on that patent. Again, no one was ever prevented from entering the market. Microsoft was just simply the best at the time. Any problems were due to patents.

If you think nobody was prevented from entering the market, than you obviously did not understand what I wrote about programmatic interfaces.
 
If you think nobody was prevented from entering the market, than you obviously did not understand what I wrote about programmatic interfaces.

Microsoft only had about a 70% market share, there were other OS's that could be used. The only way people were prevented from entering the market was through patents. Otherwise, Microsoft could do nothing to stop anyone.
 
Microsoft only had about a 70% market share, there were other OS's that could be used. The only way people were prevented from entering the market was through patents. Otherwise, Microsoft could do nothing to stop anyone.

No monopoly prevents market entrance entirely, that isn't a requirement for it to be considered a monopoly.

It doesn't appear to be patents that prevented market entry, it was:

1. Trade secrets (as Mega points out). The develop source code, but what they deliver to customers is a black box that "just works".

2. Copyright - if you managed to steal their source code, you can't just copy/paste it and not get in trouble.

3. Integration - In many software systems, once they get large and expansive enough, it looks something like this.
Software bundle does process a,b,c,d, they are all tied together.
A competitor has to bite of a small enough chunk to make it feasible, so they try to create processb, for example, better than the monopoly. They do, they do it 2x better, for 1/2 the cost!! A clear winner. Yet it's 100% useless, and unable to compete. Because it can't know how to talk to processA and C efficiently, no customer would be able to use it. This goes on an on, to costs of changing systems, training costs, expertise, etc. It effectively prevents competitive market entry this way.

Not saying what's bad or good, just trying to point out what I think the software monopoly looks like. That MS email describing integration was spot on (obviously, they ruled an industry that way). Many software markets have similar dominance. Open access is starting to bleed over into old guard software of all types..but it's slow going.

It is not insane in large markets to consider forcing vendors to allow interfacing with their tool if it's part of a "flow". They don't need to give up the inner workings, just have it terminate in such a way that people can plug other software into it. As long as its evenly enforced, it's not terribly restrictive and it helps the market compete.
 
Last edited:
1. Trade secrets (as Mega points out). The develop source code, but what they deliver to customers is a black box that "just works".

Then Microsoft, by this method, still has a monopoly of Internet Explorer. Trade Secrets are not a problem, as secrets tend not to stay secrets very long.

2. Copyright - if you managed to steal their source code, you can't just copy/paste it and not get in trouble.

But isn't borrowing their code, learning the lessons from it, and using it yourself also a crime?

3. Integration - In many software systems, once they get large and expansive enough, it looks something like this.
Software bundle does process a,b,c,d, they are all tied together.
A competitor has to bite of a small enough chunk to make it feasible, so they try to create processb, for example, better than the monopoly. They do, they do it 2x better, for 1/2 the cost!! A clear winner. Yet it's 100% useless, and unable to compete. Because it can't know how to talk to processA and C efficiently, no customer would be able to use it. This goes on an on, to costs of changing systems, training costs, expertise, etc. It effectively prevents competitive market entry this way.

A ton of people did this with Netscape though since they didn't want to use Internet Explorer.
 
Microsoft only had about a 70% market share, there were other OS's that could be used. The only way people were prevented from entering the market was through patents. Otherwise, Microsoft could do nothing to stop anyone.

Now you are talking about patents again? :shock:

I thought I had gotten you past that. I guess not :(

Oh well, I guess this is a useless exercise when you do not obviously understand any of my points.
 
Now you are talking about patents again? :shock:

I thought I had gotten you past that. I guess not :(

Oh well, I guess this is a useless exercise when you do not obviously understand any of my points.

I never dropped it. Just becuase you don't bring up a patent in a lawsuit does not mean that it is not discouraging competition. If you know that what you want to do is going to violate a patent then you have no reason to do it. You'll be shut down, it's illegal, so why start it in the first place?
 
I never dropped it. Just becuase you don't bring up a patent in a lawsuit does not mean that it is not discouraging competition. If you know that what you want to do is going to violate a patent then you have no reason to do it. You'll be shut down, it's illegal, so why start it in the first place?

I just literally wrote some software to work and I probably violated some patents doing so. However, I don't care because the chances of whoever is offended finding out is next to nil. Software is going to get written with or without patents because in general enforcement sucks, largely because its very hard to know how software was written without getting to the source code.

Heck, look at linux, there are likely many patent violations in that project, but it keeps happening anyway. It may not seem logical to you, but there you go. Also, this has nothing to do with microsoft's position in the late 90s.

Ultimately though, since you seem to know nothing about what actually happened, I suggest you educate yourself beyond lew rockwell and mises and look at the real world before you bring up issues you don't understand.

peace out.
 
Back
Top Bottom