SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Justin Banks who wrote (16172)1/17/1998 2:10:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton  Read Replies (6) of 24154
 
>What MSFT is
>saying is that in order to remove any application that uses a shared library, the
>library must be removed. This is patently silly, absurd, and could be interpreted as a
>downright lie.

So, where do you draw the line between the Operating System "product" and the "other product"?

If, in the process of installation, the "other product" makes changes to the OS product's "shared DLL," where do you draw the line then?

And, at what point does leaving those shared DLL's (or any other code originating from or shared by the "other product") on the hard drive constitute "conditioning" the receipt of the OS upon licensing the "other product"?

I really would appreciate the thoughts of the "tech heads" on these questions, as they go to the core of my view of the viability of using the Consent Decree as a tool for regulating Microsoft's anticompetitve behavior. Come up with a sensible answer, and you might even change my mind on this matter.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News