AOL bought Netscape. So they have the liabilities and abilities of Netscape, they get the benefit (one wonders if that's why they did it?)

You can't force AOL to to something, they're not a defendant in the lawsuit.

The fact that this punishes MS for their crimes is a side-affect

And you have a side effect for an innocent bystander.

If IE is dumped (from WinXP and forward, and new development stopped) in favor of netscape (has better support for standards), are the consumers really harmed?

Yes. First, you have all the consumers who have built tools for Internet Explorer. Not IE. IE is trademarked by someone else entirely, BTW.

Netscape is likely not going to be replaceable for them, costing THEM money, and it wasn't THEM doing somethign wrong. (Dumb perhaps, but dumb's legal).

There is no "lock" to use win32 api calls on linux, only to use MS products on a free operating system. This DOES help! Quite a bit in fact.

Does OS/2 (and Win/OS/2) Ring a bell?

Addison

Part of the deal would be for MS to compensate AOL to "undo" the netscape buy-out.

And you think the CURRENT court case is convoluted enough?

Then there is no harm to AOL.

Currently, netscape.com is (IIRC) one of the top portals. That would change. AOL bought netscape (for whatever reason). Ripping it away from (a company (who in this case) is innocent of monopoly behavior) isn't a legal thing to do.

OS/2 is a completely different beast than Linux, so the result would not be the same.

Irrelevant.

OS/2 was doomed [not entirely but] because it ran Windows apps "good enough". So who would bother with an OS/2 port? Just make sure it runs under Win/OS/2 (if you care). Then. Um. What's the real point of running OS/2, so you can have more problems with support?

So merely makinng WINE "perfect" has the *same* problem. Why write anything *but* a Windows binary?

The solution I am proposing for Linux is basically to open-source the win32 api in Wine. So Linux would not fall in the same trap OS/2 fell in.

But you've defined the exact same role. "Open sourcing the api" is somewhat meaningless. The Win32 API is so convoluted that merely documenting it isn't enough. (but it would be a nice start).

Microsoft has historically documented much of Win32 - but kept "secrets" as to the "best way" to do things. The only way to prevent that, would be to force all of Winddows to be released (not likely)

And then it *still* has the possibility of changing *every patch release*. Sure, Ok, here's the source, have fun.

You've got to deal with that possibility - merely forcing documentation of the API isn't enough. Either you need a structural remedy such to force prompt and efficient documentation and explanation, or you need a conduct remedy for that.

But you're still outlying the [one of] same problem that befell OS/2.....

Free/non-free is irrelevant. Put Linux in the same spot OS/2 was, with the same situation, and it'll be exactly the same.

If you don't like forcing the web developers into standards,

"Web developers" aren't part of the defense. So you can't mandate that they use standards (as part of the remedy).

(Hrm. Wonder how well a law mandating HTML standard code would fly? :))

The user can then pick what works best for the sites they visit.

Why just Netscape? Other browsers were harmed, as well. Plus, right now, Netscape isn't really a viable alternative.

Increasing the user's workload and frustrations won't help, either.

If both is chosen, then the installer would ask "which one do you want to be the default browser?".

Right now, that's not [totally] possible. Because the Win32 API calls Internet Explorer for HTML.

But you can't decide on a "fair" price for Netscape, and especially rip it out of AOL, since AOL's not a defendant in the lawsuit.

Addison