MS, judge differ on compliance news.com
Well, a few sparks here, but I'm not holding my breath. Not that I ever was. The kinder, gentler Microsoft still seems a bit confused about who's in charge in the courtroom.
The day's testimony was highlighted by verbal sparring between Judge Jackson and Microsoft's lawyers. Speaking before a packed courtroom, company attorneys attempted to blame the confusion regarding the judge's temporary order on the government.
During one pointed exchange, Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky said the company had carefully reviewed government briefs in deciding how to comply with Jackson's ruling to provide a version of Windows 95 without the Internet Explorer Web browser to PC makers.
Before Urowsky could go on, the judge interrupted: "What the government requested is not the same as what I ordered."
Urowsky replied: "I beg to differ with you."
After more discussion, Jackson said firmly: "It is my language and my language alone that is at issue here."
Well, I guess they told it to the judge. On the other hand, this Glenn Weadock guy sounds like a wuss.
After presenting the opening arguments, the Justice Department showed a videotape of expert witness Glenn Weadock, a computer consultant and author of Bulletproofing Windows 95, as he removed IE 3.0 from Windows 95 using the Add/Remove programs utility.
In afternoon testimony, Weadock declared that after removing IE from Windows 95 using the utility, visible access to Internet Explorer was removed--along with Window's Internet Connection Wizard and access to AT&T's WorldNet service software--but that the operating system was otherwise unharmed.
Yawn.
In cross-examination, Microsoft attorney Steven Holley repeatedly tried to corner Weadock into stating that Internet Explorer and Windows 95 are one product.
Holley asked if Weadock could identify, from a list of more that 220 files, the files Microsoft should instruct OEMs to remove in order to be in compliance with the court's order. Weadock identified "iexplore.exe," the executable file associated with Internet Explorer.
"What other files should Microsoft give OEMs the option to remove?" asked Holley. "I don't feel comfortable saying," replied Weadock. "I couldn't draw a box around the files that constitute IE."
Holley continued his questioning on what specific files Weadock thinks make up Internet Explorer, to no avail. "I can't cite specific C code or give you a list of files that make up IE. Some are shared," said Weadock.
Judge Jackson eventually interjected Holley's questioning, saying "the witness has said several times that he cannot do that [say where IE ends and Windows 95 begins], and I think you have tested the limits."
Well, it wasn't exactly his job, but I think he could have done a little research on the matter. Microsoft could have done a better job too, of course, I'm not quite sure what the deal is here but are Windows dll's that ill-documented that nobody can say what's in which? Sheesh, and this is the software that will rule the world? I'll repeat my (not very deep) question, of those 220-228 files, which are standard Windows runtime from before IE, which generate html, which are needed to display it, what's the linkage? Not that I expect an answer, but nobody else seems to want one either.
Cheers, Dan. |
