|
History Repeats, Again (2/25/99)
|
 
|
| | |
Apple Computer's good name has been dragged back into the plotline on "Redmond Justice" lately, as Microsoft's latest witness addresses the accusations made by Avie Tevanian during his testimony for the government's side. Avie, longtime viewers will recall, claimed not only that Microsoft tried to bully Apple into dropping QuickTime development for the Windows platform, but also that they then sabotaged QuickTime for Windows when Apple refused. In a trial jam-packed with juicy accusations of wrongdoing, Avie's stands out as perhaps one of the most direct. With the QuickTime issue, there's no pussyfooting around about whether or not "integrating" a web browser into an operating system is anticompetitive behavior-- according to Avie, Microsoft told a competitor to drop their product, and when they didn't comply, deliberate steps were taken to cripple that product.
Of course, Microsoft categorically denies the whole thing, and Eric Engstrom towed the party line when testifying before Judge Jackson on Wednesday. Eric's the manager of Microsoft's DirectX Multimedia project, and while he admits that they tried to get Apple to adopt their own multimedia technology, he says the claim of sabotage is "completely unfounded." "Our company would never do something like that," he says. He neglected to mention that there are previous accusations that Microsoft did exactly that when they tried to run a competing DOS product out of the market. In fact, the modus operandi is identical-- just as Avie claims that Windows 95 reported "questionable" error alerts when it was told to use QuickTime instead of Microsoft's own multimedia technology, Caldera once alleged that Windows 3.1 included a fake error message intended to appear when it encountered Caldera's DR-DOS instead of Microsoft's version.
Is this just history repeating? Depending on whom you believe, planting "troublesome" error alerts to get customers to stick with all-Microsoft software could be business as usual in Redmond. Regardless, whether the judge believes Avie's claims or not may well be irrelevant, given all of the other antitrust evidence stacked against Microsoft. They haven't lost yet, but time is running out...
| |
| |
 |
SceneLink (1367)
|  |
 |
|
And Now For A Word From Our Sponsors |
| | | |
|
| |
|
 | | The above scene was taken from the 2/25/99 episode: February 25, 1999: Is Apple's willingness to bully two teenage boys in Calgary related to Steve Jobs' passion for collecting domain names? Meanwhile, if you're budgeting for a hand-cranked WebMate, Apple Recon's got a bridge they'd like to sell you, and a Microsoft witness denies Avie Tevanian's allegations that the Redmond Giant sabotaged QuickTime, though the modus operandi sounds very familiar...
Other scenes from that episode: 1365: Perhaps Stamps Instead (2/25/99) If you've been wondering just what the heck is up with Apple's legal department lately, you're not alone. Specifically, the one question weighing most heavily on our minds these days is, "Given that Apple faces several lawsuits right now, including one which carries the knee-knocking potential to cost the company a whopping $3.3 billion in damages, why the heck are they spending time writing threatening letters to a couple of teenagers in Calgary in an attempt to wrest control of a domain name they don't particularly need anyway?"... 1366: Cranky Re: Hand Cranks (2/25/99) Is it just us, or is Apple Recon getting even more sarcastic than usual lately? Yes, their tone has always been somewhat adversarial in nature, and tends to hang out in "We Know More Than You Do" land-- that's part of their charm, after all...
Or view the entire episode as originally broadcast... | |  |
|
|
