MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Justin Banks who wrote (16202)	1/18/1998 12:49:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (3) of 24154

If I did as described above, I would say that the point at which I would be conditioning the receipt of the OS upon licensing the other product would only be crossed when/if I required the presence of the executable. In my mind, removing ie.exe (or whatever it's called), would be sufficient to meet the Justice department's criteria. So, I gather, then, that under your appraoch, the "product" would be the executable file only? Or would you take the approach that requiring licensing only part of the "other product," but not the whole product, as a condition of licensing Windows does not violate the Consent Decree? In other words, could Microsoft require all of the files associated with IE except the actual .exe to be licensed as a condition of licensing Windows and not be in violation of the Consent Decree? What if Microsoft required licensing of the .exe file but left out some other, obscure files, such that the other product fuctioned but was not comlete? Would this violate the Consent Decree?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next