- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Google calls for more limits on Microsoft
The saga of the desktop search war continues. In the latest installment, the Justice Department is happy with Microsoft, but Google is unhappy with everybody.
|
|
|
Comments (22)
Google calls for more limits on Microsoft
With a bit of luck...
They'll take each other down whilst squabbling over the prize.
Sal -
Did Google steal your lunch money or something?
I'm actually quite glad that Google's around, especially given their contributions to free software.
Did Google steal your lunch money or something?
I'm actually quite glad that Google's around, especially given their contributions to free software.
Equating the merits of M$ and Google in the same sentence is a bit off the wall. On the one hand M$ has a long, well-documented history of producing junk, harming competition by illegal means, suing customers etc. On the other Google had a vision which they have executed well, survived .com, and do search really well. Google does appear to be trying to have a monopoly in search but they are doing that by competing on merits. They could become evil/dangerous in the future, but there is no sign of that now. They potentially could harm competitors by making biased searches but searching for pogson linux finds my page right away and I do not have to pay them a cent. I would be harmed if I were in business and my hits came 32 pages back, but Google seems to be stimulating competition, not killing it, with their current practises.
Personally, I congratulate any business that has the will to stand up to M$. Clearly, governments around the world have done too little to police the market and end-users have had little choice but to play along. A good offence may be the best defence against the bully.
Personally, I congratulate any business that has the will to stand up to M$. Clearly, governments around the world have done too little to police the market and end-users have had little choice but to play along. A good offence may be the best defence against the bully.
>but Google seems to be stimulating competition, not killing it, with their current practises.
Which is what they are supposed to do, and is what happens in the absence of viciously wielded monopoly power.
A cautionary note:
Microsoft started out by out-competing others. They didn't offer great stuff -- though Excel has always been good and Access very good for what it does -- but offered a lot at a price when others were seeking premiums. Once they got market power, however, they used it to brutal effect.
Which is what they are supposed to do, and is what happens in the absence of viciously wielded monopoly power.
A cautionary note:
Microsoft started out by out-competing others. They didn't offer great stuff -- though Excel has always been good and Access very good for what it does -- but offered a lot at a price when others were seeking premiums. Once they got market power, however, they used it to brutal effect.
No, they didn't steal my lunch money.
I'm just staggered at the willingness of most people to overlook China. I'm staggered by the indifference to what this means they could do in the US/Europe if "motivated sufficiently".
I'm staggered that so few of you aren't screaming about the risk that their position presents - they are not far off being the gatekeepers to the net. Why aren't you scared/angry/troubled?
I'm staggered at how easily mollified some of you are by the fact they use Linux.
After Tony Blair called for a "chinese style internet" - what do you think this means? It means companies like MS, Yahoo, Cisco and Google would censor the net and report to the authorities those who wanted to learn about things "outside the box". As they are all already doing in China.
The net is not far off the last method by which we may openly communicate and share ideas - little wonder it's under threat. Those for whom misinformation, lies and manipulation are the standard fare do not like the freedom the net currently offers.
Where would the 9/11 truth movement be without the net? Where would Linux be without the net?
Various people criticised Linspire for having the MS Live Search as default - yet everything except Internet Explorer now comes with Google as default (yes you can change it but that's not the point) and I hear no one saying "hang on a minute...". So much software (for windows) now comes with the google tool bar, which you have to deselect if you don't want it, as part of the install.
What do you think? That these people somehow will be strong and courageous in the face of power?
Like they did in China?
Why don't you care? Why aren't you angry? Why are you still praising these people? What do they have to do - personally censor your surfing before you wake up?
If they did to someone else they can, and probably will, do it to you.
I'm just staggered at the willingness of most people to overlook China. I'm staggered by the indifference to what this means they could do in the US/Europe if "motivated sufficiently".
I'm staggered that so few of you aren't screaming about the risk that their position presents - they are not far off being the gatekeepers to the net. Why aren't you scared/angry/troubled?
I'm staggered at how easily mollified some of you are by the fact they use Linux.
After Tony Blair called for a "chinese style internet" - what do you think this means? It means companies like MS, Yahoo, Cisco and Google would censor the net and report to the authorities those who wanted to learn about things "outside the box". As they are all already doing in China.
The net is not far off the last method by which we may openly communicate and share ideas - little wonder it's under threat. Those for whom misinformation, lies and manipulation are the standard fare do not like the freedom the net currently offers.
Where would the 9/11 truth movement be without the net? Where would Linux be without the net?
Various people criticised Linspire for having the MS Live Search as default - yet everything except Internet Explorer now comes with Google as default (yes you can change it but that's not the point) and I hear no one saying "hang on a minute...". So much software (for windows) now comes with the google tool bar, which you have to deselect if you don't want it, as part of the install.
What do you think? That these people somehow will be strong and courageous in the face of power?
Like they did in China?
Why don't you care? Why aren't you angry? Why are you still praising these people? What do they have to do - personally censor your surfing before you wake up?
If they did to someone else they can, and probably will, do it to you.
> It means companies like MS, Yahoo, Cisco and Google would censor the net and report to the authorities those who wanted to learn about things "outside the box". As they are all already doing in China.
OK. A simple fact here. None of those companies are censoring or monitoring the net.
The Chinese government is.
Yes, those companies are cooperating with the Chinese government. If they do business in China, they have to. It's the law.
These companies have two options. Cooperate, or don't do business in China.
My vote would be not to do business in China, but I'm not a shareholder in any of the above companies.
> Why don't you care?
I do care. I remember Tiananmen Square. But I have no way to influence the Chinese government other than to not do business with them. Which, if you're a normal American consumer, is almost impossible.
> Why are you still praising these people?
I'm not. Google has the best search engine available. Admitting that is not praise.
Google has made the decision that doing business in China on the terms the Chinese government sets is better than not doing business there at all. We may disagree, but it's their decision to make. But we should never forget that it's not Google that's setting the terms here, it's the Chinese government. They're the ones responsible for what's going on, and they're the ones we should blame.
> If they did to someone else they can, and probably will, do it to you.
Only if, as in China, the government decides to do so. Your government should be of far more concern to you than Google. Mine is to me.
OK. A simple fact here. None of those companies are censoring or monitoring the net.
The Chinese government is.
Yes, those companies are cooperating with the Chinese government. If they do business in China, they have to. It's the law.
These companies have two options. Cooperate, or don't do business in China.
My vote would be not to do business in China, but I'm not a shareholder in any of the above companies.
> Why don't you care?
I do care. I remember Tiananmen Square. But I have no way to influence the Chinese government other than to not do business with them. Which, if you're a normal American consumer, is almost impossible.
> Why are you still praising these people?
I'm not. Google has the best search engine available. Admitting that is not praise.
Google has made the decision that doing business in China on the terms the Chinese government sets is better than not doing business there at all. We may disagree, but it's their decision to make. But we should never forget that it's not Google that's setting the terms here, it's the Chinese government. They're the ones responsible for what's going on, and they're the ones we should blame.
> If they did to someone else they can, and probably will, do it to you.
Only if, as in China, the government decides to do so. Your government should be of far more concern to you than Google. Mine is to me.
As mine is to me - never-the-less, Google is the means by which they achieve that end and this crap about "it's chinese law" is just that - crap.
They could have said No.
I've been using Ask for months - I have no problems.
They could have said No.
I've been using Ask for months - I have no problems.
"They could have said No."
Lots of cocaine and opium producers say "no" every day. Lots of speeders, smugglers, gun possessors, sex merchants, tax resisters and others who harm no one say "no". I hope you will also be offended by those people and companies who abide those laws just because they are the law of the country they are trying to do business in.
Don't fall into the trap of being only against those intrusive regulations that you personally don't like.
There are other companies who have said "yes" to the Chinese government who must not be left out: Microsoft, Cisco, I don't know who else, have also helped build the Great Firewall. Search engines, maybe even Ask, filter their results by the laws of the country to which the network block of the requester is assigned.
Let's not forget to punish Ebay and Yahoo for filtering Nazi relics for the government of France.
Where am I going with this, I ask myself? Only to address the fact that voluntary organizations such as corporations and firms have _nothing_ on the abuse that is perpetrated by governments every day. Put the blame squarely on the source of the problem: The Institution of Coercion.
Lots of cocaine and opium producers say "no" every day. Lots of speeders, smugglers, gun possessors, sex merchants, tax resisters and others who harm no one say "no". I hope you will also be offended by those people and companies who abide those laws just because they are the law of the country they are trying to do business in.
Don't fall into the trap of being only against those intrusive regulations that you personally don't like.
There are other companies who have said "yes" to the Chinese government who must not be left out: Microsoft, Cisco, I don't know who else, have also helped build the Great Firewall. Search engines, maybe even Ask, filter their results by the laws of the country to which the network block of the requester is assigned.
Let's not forget to punish Ebay and Yahoo for filtering Nazi relics for the government of France.
Where am I going with this, I ask myself? Only to address the fact that voluntary organizations such as corporations and firms have _nothing_ on the abuse that is perpetrated by governments every day. Put the blame squarely on the source of the problem: The Institution of Coercion.
> I don't know who else...
Sun, for starters.
Sun, for starters.
A couple of points:
First: The internet is like a living orgasm. It routes around damage and censorship is certainly regarded as damage in this aspect. If Blair sets through, there would be a dark net before you can say "dark net".
Second: Google only filters google.cn and not google.com. The .com is also reachable from inside China and isn't filtered. Just try out a bunch of Chinese proxy servers and see for yourself. A censored result for "tianenmen square" gives you about 45.000 results. The uncensored version 1.2 million. If you like I can try to gather some additional data since my company has a branche office in China.
Third: What Yahoo did (passing information that led to an arrest of a writer. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4221538.stm) is much worse than Google did.
Fourth: Google certainly isn't without it's hypocrisies. They work with China to censor google.cn but then tell the German government it will shut down Gmail in Germany if the government doesn't amend the law? See http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/google_may_close_gmail_g... if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Google isn't without it's flaws and it's potential to do damage is enormous, but so far they have been an above average citizen. I'm not scared of Google today but I fear the day management changes over there.
Quoting:After Tony Blair called for a "chinese style internet" - what do you think this means?
First: The internet is like a living orgasm. It routes around damage and censorship is certainly regarded as damage in this aspect. If Blair sets through, there would be a dark net before you can say "dark net".
Second: Google only filters google.cn and not google.com. The .com is also reachable from inside China and isn't filtered. Just try out a bunch of Chinese proxy servers and see for yourself. A censored result for "tianenmen square" gives you about 45.000 results. The uncensored version 1.2 million. If you like I can try to gather some additional data since my company has a branche office in China.
Third: What Yahoo did (passing information that led to an arrest of a writer. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4221538.stm) is much worse than Google did.
Fourth: Google certainly isn't without it's hypocrisies. They work with China to censor google.cn but then tell the German government it will shut down Gmail in Germany if the government doesn't amend the law? See http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/google_may_close_gmail_g... if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Google isn't without it's flaws and it's potential to do damage is enormous, but so far they have been an above average citizen. I'm not scared of Google today but I fear the day management changes over there.
> The .com is also reachable from inside China and isn't filtered.
Not by Google, no. It is filtered by the Chinese government. How successfully I can't say.
> ...since my company has a branche office in China.
Your office probably doesn't get the same level of filtering the average Chinese citizen gets. Check on machines available to the public too and see if they give you the same results.
Not by Google, no. It is filtered by the Chinese government. How successfully I can't say.
> ...since my company has a branche office in China.
Your office probably doesn't get the same level of filtering the average Chinese citizen gets. Check on machines available to the public too and see if they give you the same results.
Quoting:How successfully I can't say.
I tried a bunch of Chineese proxies before writing my previous post. They all showed me the same results. I don't know if you would be able to access the sites shown in the results, but the results themselves were just fine.
Quoting:Your office probably doesn't get the same level of filtering the average Chinese citizen gets.
They do actually, because it's an internet marketing firm. They need to be able to access the web in the same way as the rest of the population or they cannot produce decent analysis and the like. It would be a bit of a bummer to spend a lot of money on landing pages, only to have them caught in the Great Firewall of China :-)
> They work with China to censor google.cn but then tell the German government it will shut down Gmail in Germany if the government doesn't amend the law?
Well, they probably think the German government is susceptible to the pressure of public opinion. We'll have to see if they're right or not. I doubt they have that illusion concerning the Chinese government.
> They do actually, because it's an internet marketing firm.
OK, I stand corrected. Something I pleased to be wrong about, actually.
I wonder if the Chinese government has given up on filtering Google or what. That doesn't sound like them. Maybe it's because it's in English?
Any further research you could do on the subject of Chinese filtering would be appreciated. It might even make a good writeup for LXer.
Personally, I think Bush should have made a point of laying a wreath at the square while he was in China, on world wide television. It would have made US priorities clear to the Chinese government in a way nothing else could.
Well, they probably think the German government is susceptible to the pressure of public opinion. We'll have to see if they're right or not. I doubt they have that illusion concerning the Chinese government.
> They do actually, because it's an internet marketing firm.
OK, I stand corrected. Something I pleased to be wrong about, actually.
I wonder if the Chinese government has given up on filtering Google or what. That doesn't sound like them. Maybe it's because it's in English?
Any further research you could do on the subject of Chinese filtering would be appreciated. It might even make a good writeup for LXer.
Personally, I think Bush should have made a point of laying a wreath at the square while he was in China, on world wide television. It would have made US priorities clear to the Chinese government in a way nothing else could.
"I doubt they have that illusion concerning the Chinese government."
They had better NOT have that illusion. As "friendly" as the Chinese government seems at the moment, it's only because the government feels secure. The moment the Chinese government itself feels insecure, you will see some nasty stuff falling from the sky, proverbially speaking.
Ever hear of Fallon Gong? It wasn't prohibitted in China, its members imprisoned and tortured, because it holds dangerous views. It's not a "political" organization. But it began to have a membership which rivaled the Communist Party in numbers, and that is just not permitted.
Speaking of not permitted...
"I think Bush should have made a point of laying a wreath at the square while he was in China"
He would not be allowed to. Period. The US government knows full well that all the Chinese government would have to do is dump their massive stock of dollars on the world market, and the US economy would have insane inflation numbers overnight.
The US government is printing vast quantities of money in order to allow deficit spending year, after year, after year. The money-sinks of oil and China trade soak up enough of this waste-currency that the economy doesn't go into a meltdown like Germany in the 1920s, or Japan right now, or so many of the other "east Asia miracle" countries did when they decided to play the money printing game.
The Chinese government stations troops around Tienamin Square every year on the anniversary of the crackdown, just to make sure that no one ever commemorates the event.
A friend of mine lived quite close to the Square during the event. She said that she saw the tanks coming in. The people there "had been warned, but had not dispersed". This happened after many days of protest, which had been allowed, and the tanks came in only after a warning. This is not something that the Chinese government is ever going to be embarrassed by.
Any more than the American government is going to prosecute the soldiers who killed 86 people near Waco, TX. They were, instead, given commendations and promotions, because they followed orders.
They had better NOT have that illusion. As "friendly" as the Chinese government seems at the moment, it's only because the government feels secure. The moment the Chinese government itself feels insecure, you will see some nasty stuff falling from the sky, proverbially speaking.
Ever hear of Fallon Gong? It wasn't prohibitted in China, its members imprisoned and tortured, because it holds dangerous views. It's not a "political" organization. But it began to have a membership which rivaled the Communist Party in numbers, and that is just not permitted.
Speaking of not permitted...
"I think Bush should have made a point of laying a wreath at the square while he was in China"
He would not be allowed to. Period. The US government knows full well that all the Chinese government would have to do is dump their massive stock of dollars on the world market, and the US economy would have insane inflation numbers overnight.
The US government is printing vast quantities of money in order to allow deficit spending year, after year, after year. The money-sinks of oil and China trade soak up enough of this waste-currency that the economy doesn't go into a meltdown like Germany in the 1920s, or Japan right now, or so many of the other "east Asia miracle" countries did when they decided to play the money printing game.
The Chinese government stations troops around Tienamin Square every year on the anniversary of the crackdown, just to make sure that no one ever commemorates the event.
A friend of mine lived quite close to the Square during the event. She said that she saw the tanks coming in. The people there "had been warned, but had not dispersed". This happened after many days of protest, which had been allowed, and the tanks came in only after a warning. This is not something that the Chinese government is ever going to be embarrassed by.
Any more than the American government is going to prosecute the soldiers who killed 86 people near Waco, TX. They were, instead, given commendations and promotions, because they followed orders.
> He would not be allowed to. Period.
Well, the Chinese wouldn't have stopped him. They may have reacted exactly as you say, but they wouldn't have stopped him.
I realize that's not what you're saying, of course. It's the forces in our own government which wouldn't allow it. Just one more reason I'd never get elected President, I suppose.
Well, the Chinese wouldn't have stopped him. They may have reacted exactly as you say, but they wouldn't have stopped him.
I realize that's not what you're saying, of course. It's the forces in our own government which wouldn't allow it. Just one more reason I'd never get elected President, I suppose.
Yes. No one would have put him in shackles and dragged him back to AirForce One.
Let me say that I would love, really LOVE, to see what would happen if an American President were to do it. It would be a lot like dropping a steer into the Amazon to see how quickly the perana swarm.
The most fun part of that would be finding out who the bought_and_paid_for perana are. Unfortunately, I don't run the world, so we may never have that opportunity.
What most Americans don't understand is that Chinese industry is not "private". Government insiders run the major industries and corporations, including "Norinco", which is the Chinese Army.
The government owns all land, and by proxy all buildings, since once you build a factory it's really hard to move it. That's one reason that really major foreign investment in China has taken so long. No "security" since your capital investments can be "nationalized" on a whim. There are promises now of capital security, but when a politician makes a promise, who do you believe?
The Chinese _people_, on the other hand, are thrilled to have the relative economic freedom that they are enjoying now. Personal industry is thriving, their stock market is soaring (on a flood of US dollars), personal automobiles are everywhere as well as small businesses.
It used to be said that "The Chinese are wealthy everywhere but in China", and that personal industry is making a big difference inside China right now. But only because it is allowed, and the environment of permissiveness can (and I think will) change for worse and better as time goes on.
As long as the Chinese government keeps the "leader of the free world" on a short leash, they will be able to convince their people that things will get better. That's their hook right now.
What the Chinese government has not yet figured out is that their security is assured not by the number of guns they have, but by the confidence the people have in the _next_ election. That is how the US government has been able to tax 7/8 of the wealth out of the economy and still call itself the "land of the free".
Let me say that I would love, really LOVE, to see what would happen if an American President were to do it. It would be a lot like dropping a steer into the Amazon to see how quickly the perana swarm.
The most fun part of that would be finding out who the bought_and_paid_for perana are. Unfortunately, I don't run the world, so we may never have that opportunity.
What most Americans don't understand is that Chinese industry is not "private". Government insiders run the major industries and corporations, including "Norinco", which is the Chinese Army.
The government owns all land, and by proxy all buildings, since once you build a factory it's really hard to move it. That's one reason that really major foreign investment in China has taken so long. No "security" since your capital investments can be "nationalized" on a whim. There are promises now of capital security, but when a politician makes a promise, who do you believe?
The Chinese _people_, on the other hand, are thrilled to have the relative economic freedom that they are enjoying now. Personal industry is thriving, their stock market is soaring (on a flood of US dollars), personal automobiles are everywhere as well as small businesses.
It used to be said that "The Chinese are wealthy everywhere but in China", and that personal industry is making a big difference inside China right now. But only because it is allowed, and the environment of permissiveness can (and I think will) change for worse and better as time goes on.
As long as the Chinese government keeps the "leader of the free world" on a short leash, they will be able to convince their people that things will get better. That's their hook right now.
What the Chinese government has not yet figured out is that their security is assured not by the number of guns they have, but by the confidence the people have in the _next_ election. That is how the US government has been able to tax 7/8 of the wealth out of the economy and still call itself the "land of the free".
Quoting:I wonder if the Chinese government has given up on filtering Google or what. That doesn't sound like them. Maybe it's because it's in English?
Perhaps it's part of the deal. They filter .cn voluntarily (which Google can do way better than the Chineese firewall) and in return .com is left alone. Google has only a minority marketshare in China. Baidu is the big search engine over there. The Chineese people using .com instead of .cn is likely another order on numbers lower so the "threat" is low.
Competition by Litigation.
Sorry, I know it's easy to say "Microsoft is wrong", but the reality of anti-trust laws is that there is nothing more anti-competitive than the laws themselves.
Antitrust for Fun and Profit http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=70&sortor...
Anti-trust, Anti-truth http://www.mises.org/story/436
If all government granted monopolies were abolished, if the protectionist tarriffs that are designed to prop up some otherwise inefficient industry or another were eliminated, then maybe there might be room for abusing Microsoft.
Now the fact that Microsoft has learned to go to Washington to buy favors, that is very much something that I abhor and would like to see destroyed. But having different companies do exactly the same thing is merely pot-kettle-black.
But then it really doesn't matter. So long as power is centralized in one place, claiming to be able to regulate every aspect of the individuals life, corruption will be drawn in like mass into a gravity well. I'm not surprised, but I would be surprised if anyone _did_ act surprised.
Antitrust for Fun and Profit http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=70&sortor...
Anti-trust, Anti-truth http://www.mises.org/story/436
If all government granted monopolies were abolished, if the protectionist tarriffs that are designed to prop up some otherwise inefficient industry or another were eliminated, then maybe there might be room for abusing Microsoft.
Now the fact that Microsoft has learned to go to Washington to buy favors, that is very much something that I abhor and would like to see destroyed. But having different companies do exactly the same thing is merely pot-kettle-black.
But then it really doesn't matter. So long as power is centralized in one place, claiming to be able to regulate every aspect of the individuals life, corruption will be drawn in like mass into a gravity well. I'm not surprised, but I would be surprised if anyone _did_ act surprised.
Bob -
I'm all mealy-mouthed on this one.
I thought the original federal trial was a tremendous waste of resources and took a lot of heat for saying that.
However, with the case behind us, the money spent, and the findings in hand, enforcing them seems like the right thing to do.
I'm all mealy-mouthed on this one.
I thought the original federal trial was a tremendous waste of resources and took a lot of heat for saying that.
However, with the case behind us, the money spent, and the findings in hand, enforcing them seems like the right thing to do.
Dino, yes, I too was in the hot seat for saying that the litigation was a witch hunt and "extortion for reelection donations".
What I don't see is any reason to rationalize a bad act by pretending its results are somehow good just because they are the results. One of the reasons I am not a "conservative", I don't believe that just because something is the status-quo makes it worth keeping.
Microsoft is abusive, egotistical, monomaniacal, just like its top management. Rather than abusing the freedom of all for the sake of taking down one nasty group (gee, where have I run into that before? DMCA? Patriot Act?) I would much rather see efforts to remove Microsoft from those positions of power which it maintains.
What I don't see is any reason to rationalize a bad act by pretending its results are somehow good just because they are the results. One of the reasons I am not a "conservative", I don't believe that just because something is the status-quo makes it worth keeping.
Microsoft is abusive, egotistical, monomaniacal, just like its top management. Rather than abusing the freedom of all for the sake of taking down one nasty group (gee, where have I run into that before? DMCA? Patriot Act?) I would much rather see efforts to remove Microsoft from those positions of power which it maintains.
Quoting:One of the reasons I am not a "conservative", I don't believe that just because something is the status-quo makes it worth keeping.I feel exactly the same and I call myself a conservative. That's the reason I'm not a Republican.
Quoting:Microsoft is abusive, egotistical, monomaniacal, just like its top management.Well, that depends on how you qualify "Microsoft". To me, Microsoft is a group of people working for a company. I have no problem with that group of people. The top management, however, seems to fit your description precisely.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vii
"411. Many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed consumers indirectly by unjustifiably distorting competition. The actions that Microsoft took against Navigator hobbled a form of innovation that had shown the potential to depress the applications barrier to entry sufficiently to enable other firms to compete effectively against Microsoft in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. That competition would have conduced to consumer choice and nurtured innovation. The campaign against Navigator also retarded widespread acceptance of Sun's Java implementation.
This campaign, together with actions that Microsoft took with the sole purpose of making it difficult for developers to write Java applications with technologies that would allow them to be ported between Windows and other platforms, impeded another form of innovation that bore the potential to diminish the applications barrier to entry. There is insufficient evidence to find that, absent Microsoft's actions, Navigator and Java already would have ignited genuine competition in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. It is clear, however, that Microsoft has retarded, and perhaps altogether extinguished, the process by which these two middleware technologies could have facilitated the introduction of competition into an important market."