LKO
I don't believe that the DOJ is trying to tell MSFT not to
bundle its applications with Windows software. If it was
a bundling issue, MSFT's chief lawyer wouldn't be whining
about how IE is part of Windows and how the Fed "just does
not understand what the consent decree means." (even though
it was written by DOJ). No, MSFT is trying to show that IE
is NOT a bundled product (like ftp,telnet etc...) but an
integral part of Windows so they can get around the consent
decree. That is where their argument falls flat.
Last I heard, SUNW doesn't try to jam HotJava down anyone's
throat. Certainly, that is the issue here with MSFT.
From what I've heard, their practice is called contract tying,
which was outlawed in the Clayton anti-trust act of 1914.
BTW, it seems to me that MSFT itself didn't consider IE to be
a part of Windows '95, at least until recently. Windows '95
was published first & ran just fine without IE included. You
could buy the two separately or bundled, I believe. That
doesn't sound like an integral o/s component to me. Solaris
wouldn't work too great without nfs, NetWare wouldn't work too
great without ipx/spx, OS/2 wouldn't run real well without
NETBIOS, MVS wouldn't be too swift without ncp/vtam.
So what's so special about MSFT? Maybe they think everyone
else is too stupid to see through their double-talk?? Maybe
they have another agenda?? Call it: buying time until they
can diversify out of the computer to the service and
content-provider market. I think the guys up in Redmond are
driven by fear & they're desparately trying to shift gears.
All the legal problems are just a distraction, but they will
seriously mar MSFT's reputation among the general public and
can't be good for MSFT's business.
The DOJ action should strengthen SUNW's lawsuit as well.
cheers,
cherylw |
