Naval Gazing? Oh, you mean like this? ---
Posted on 01/11/2021 7:15:22 PM PST by Political Junkie Too
Parler must study the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp, brought in 1998 by Bill Clinton's Department of Justice and 20 states.
When reading the following, think this:
Netscape sued Microsoft claiming that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices by integrating the Internet Explorer browser directly in to the Windows operating system, and purposely degrading performance of competitor browsers.
Previously, Netscape was the dominant PC browser of the internet, until Microsoft crippled non-Microsoft browser support on Microsoft computers. After Microsoft released Windows 98 with an integrated browser, Netscape's market share collapsed. Netscape charged anti-trust practices and sued.
It's important to also remember that in 1998 Bill Gates was not the philanthropist that he is today. It was this case, brought by the Bill Clinton administration to punish Gates for tight purse strings, that eventually led to Gates aligning with Democrat interests.
The issue was that the Windows personal computer was the means of connecting with the rest of the world in a budding world wide web. If you were denied access to the Windows PC platform, you were denied the ability to innovate with new consumer software or hardware. Microsoft took steps to deny competitors access to their hardware, essentially destroying any competitor's ability to compete.
This is the same argument being made today, except that it is cloud services provided by Google instead of personal computers provided by Microsoft. It is messaging services provided by Parler instead of browser services provided by Netscape.
But the anti-trust issues are the same: a service provider denying a competitor equal access to services being provided to others in order to stifle rival competition.
I hope people study this case and use it to Parler's advantage.
-PJ
-PJ
The courts will rule the opposite way this time
Oh! I am sure big tech is scared...
And the current edition of SCOTUS will be busily engaging in navel gazing.
Really?
One expects the Department of Just-Us, located in the greatest cluster of lying marshmallow major morals deficient slime in the multiverse, to actually dispense real justice?
Really?
There is only one solution for D.C.
Good analysis and points.
Nice job. You’re not saying it was Ruthie’s next to last wish, are you?
With court packing hanging over SCOTUS, precedent is reduced to the status of a helpful suggestion.
Expect SCOTUS to decline to hear the case without comment. They will be given their orders.
SCROTUM will say they don’t have standing.
Let them.
They will further discredit themselves and further infuriate conservatives. Maybe some parts of Wall Street, too, will lose confidence that their future lawsuits will be fairly adjudicated when the time comes.
-PJ
Yes
Also an EO signed last year dealing with online censorship
It was the pot-smoking Doug Ginsburg, not Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was already on the Supreme Court.
My mistake.
-PJ
Interesting, but Amazon is the Cloud Server, and Twitter is the Competitor. I don’t believe Amazon owns Twitter. Now, if collusion between the two can be proven a case might be made. Who is the Cloud Server for Twitter?
Agreed. The basis of that case was about defining the monopoly. The browser wars were very interesting.
When fighting for first amendment rights, the legal system is one weapon.
Another weapon is technical innovation. Can the internet be used in a new way to support freedom of speech? Perhaps there is a way to circumvent the “centralization” of big tech and restore the internet to a distributed resource, in the spirit of block chain.
Twitter runs on AWS. Parler can make a good case that AWS treats Parler worse than Twitter in regards to Twitter containing incitement posts.
I am fairly certain it's Amazon AWS.
And Apple and Google are deleting the app from their stores, so there's the collusion: Amazon, Apple, and Google stifling competition by denying their services.
Can you imagine if a city that builds a highway says that only General Motors cars can ride on it at top speed, but Ford owners can use it at degraded performance?
-PJ
Naval Gazing? Oh, you mean like this? ---
Kaypro was better.
Kaypro was better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.