Jerry -
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?
One can't require licensing of shared libraries that only provide support to an application. For all we know, MSFT has put their TCP/IP stuff in a library that IE uses. While that would be essential to make IE run, it's not required that it be removed in order for IE to be considered removed.
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?
I don't think that would be a violation. Most (all?) of the files associated with IE are shared libraries that are used by a variety of different applications. They are a part of the OS. They are not a part of IE any more than the runtime C++ library is, assuming IE is written in C++.
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?
So you got the icon but the product wouldn't run?
I'd like to expand on Chaz' engine analogy. Pretend I'm GM (or Chrysler, or Ford, or whoever). I build a product that makes the cars I build run only (or better, or whatever) on GM brand gasoline. I require my dealers to license this thingy in every GM they sell, and will only let them sell it if they only sell my brand of cars. After a year or so, the Justice dept. files suit that requires me to stop bundling this thingy with my new cars. So I say, well, if I take it out, I've got to take out the fuel injectors and the entire gas line, because those things are part of my gas thingy. Would that be a valid argument? For me to say that I can ship a car without my gas thingy but the car won't start? In order to comply with the court order, all I would have to do is remove my gas thingy. Sure, I could require that my dealers accept or license my fuel injectors or my gas line, or my engine block, or whatever, but that's irrelevant to the issue. The issue is the functionality that I've introduced that's bad for competition and provides me with an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
-justinb |
