<Now, this is not the whole agreement, and I'm no expert, but all this says (using Webster's definition of "to integrate") is that this provision, in and of itself, shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing "whole" products.
Now, Windows, it seems to me, is a "whole" product. You don't need Internet Explorer to run Windows.
Internet Explorer is also a "whole" product. You don't need Windows to run, for example, the Mac version of Internet Explorer.
So nothing in the consent decree can be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing two "whole" products called Windows and Internet Explorer. That does not mean that the Decree cannot be construed to prohibit the tying together of these two "whole" products.>
The networking functions of the server, workstation, and Win 16/Win 95 client OSs can be easily construed as whole products as well. Yet they are a natural fit into the OS as an actual, and hihgly functional improvement to productivity. So much so that they are coniserder a must for nearly all OSs in 1997.
What is a browser if it is not a intuitive, graphical interface to a networked environment? If this is true, then it follows that MSFT is well within its rights to provided this highly fucntional improvement to its OS a necessity of fucntionality and innovation. If not, then NSCP shoudl not provide any OS functionality in its browsers due to its monpolistic status (that is read as NO Constellation or Aurora vaporware threats) and Sun and MAC had better withdraw all of its networking capabilities from thier respective OSs as well.
RCM
rcmfinancial.com |
