Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (67105)	4/11/2002 3:50:12 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

Perhaps that's not the area on which he was asked to opine. Charles Tutt (SM)

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (67105)	4/11/2002 4:16:20 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Duke: I saw Shapiro's comments especially his demurring with respect to remedies. He thinks she should fix what he speculates might happen in the future but has no idea himself on what to do with the remedy addressing the past conduct other than agree with the DOJ and MSFT. It is all such a tragic and pathetic joke. If it is of any consolation SUNW is headed for 7, ORCL headed for single digits and IBM threatening to go into the '70's.JFD

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (67105)	4/11/2002 5:15:38 PM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Focus in Microsoft trial turns to limits on access to source code By Kevin Galvin Seattle Times Washington bureau WASHINGTON — With a computer expert on the witness stand, Microsoft yesterday sought to exploit ambiguities in the tough remedies proposed by states still pursuing a landmark antitrust case. In one instance, Microsoft attorney Steve Holley asked Princeton University professor Andrew Appel, a witness for the plaintiffs, how broadly the Redmond software maker could be required to share Windows source code, the building blocks of the dominant operating system. Would a Chinese government official who wanted to pirate Windows have the same right to review the code, Holley wondered, as would a 16-year-old in Tuscaloosa, Ala., developing software in his garage? "How many thousands of people per month would be entitled to come to Redmond to look at the source code?" Holley asked. The question involves a remedy proposal by the states that calls for Microsoft to grant access to portions of its source code that are hidden when Windows is installed on desktops. The states generally want Microsoft to disclose more data about its operating system to facilitate development of third-party software products that work with Windows. In his reply, Appel conceded that the Chinese and independent software developers alike would be able to access the code for purpose of developing products that could work efficiently with Windows. But he said the states weren't advocating that rivals be allowed to copy Microsoft's source code and that the extreme examples Holley offered would be unlikely to occur if Microsoft were more open about its products. Reviewing code line by line in a secure room at Microsoft is time-consuming and developers would prefer to work with the limited data they need to ensure that their products can interoperate with Microsoft software. "To the extent that Microsoft can do that well, there is much less need for someone to come to the secure facility," Appel said. Microsoft has also questioned whether a proposal to force it to market a stripped-down version of Windows would require the company to test more than a thousand versions of the same operating system and whether it would be forced to relinquish some of its intellectual property. After a U.S. Court of Appeals reaffirmed that Microsoft had monopolized the market for desktop-operating systems, the Justice Department and nine states agreed to settle antitrust charges. But California, eight other states and the District of Columbia are pressing ahead before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for tougher remedies. Also yesterday, the judge rejected the litigating states' late request to conclude the presentation of their case with excerpts from the videotaped depositions of Bill Gates and other Microsoft executives. The judge scolded lawyers for the states for nearly 30 minutes, noting that they should have informed the court earlier if they intended to use the statements of Microsoft's own witnesses against the company. The request came more than one month after a March 4 deadline for listing witnesses. "Clearly, before the trial, something should have been said," Kollar-Kotelly said. But the ruling, which was made on procedural grounds, doesn't preclude the plaintiffs from trying to offer the same material during their cross-examination of Microsoft's witnesses, which is expected soon. ~~~ New standards for Web security, privacy posted for consideration SEATTLE — To reassure software developers and companies wary of Web services' security, Microsoft, IBM and Verisign today are proposing a new set of security and privacy standards. The standards define a set of extensions to SOAP, the protocol that enables Web services to share information, for adding security mechanisms. The companies are posting the standards on their Web sites today and will submit them to a standards body for certification after they decide which body is appropriate. "It's way more comprehensive than anything any of the companies have done on their own or together in the past," said Adam Sohn, product manager for .NET strategy at Microsoft. Microsoft and IBM also released a report outlining additional security specifications they plan to develop with customers, partners and standards organizations. — Brier Dudley Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (67105)	4/11/2002 6:17:06 PM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Free Browser Stumps Economist Microsoft's Lacovara won't complete his cross examination of states' economist Shapiro until Monday, a day when the first of the 31 Microsoft witnesses is also likely to appear. But in the last few minutes of the trial Thursday, Lacovara returned to the question of unbundling software from Windows, leaving Shapiro with a quandary to think about as the trial adjourned for the week. The problem was this: The states' remedy would require Microsoft within six months to sell a version of Windows without the Internet Explorer web browser, software that is at the root of the antitrust case. Microsoft would be required to discount the price of the browserless Windows, based in part on development costs for Explorer. But Microsoft would also be required to publish for free the software code for Explorer, allowing developers to create their own versions of it. That would leave Microsoft with no incentive to invest in Explorer, since the discount would increase with development costs at the same time that computer makers could install a "perfect open source clone with innovations in it," Lacovara said. Answered Shapiro, "I hadn't considered that before." While allowing he wanted more time to think about the problem, he said Microsoft could recover Explorer development costs by raising the price of Windows. "So you would raise the price of Windows for all consumers?" asked Lacovara. Shapiro responded that maybe the requirement to discount the browserless Windows should be reconsidered in light of the requirement to give away its source code. Responded Lacovara, "So they would not get a discount for the only piece of Microsoft middleware that was at issue in this trial?" Said Shapiro, "you can put it that way," but the open source Explorer is a powerful remedy. "So it's not quite as odd as your question makes it sound." By Mark Wigfield, Dow Jones Newswires; 2028283397; Mark.Wigfield@dowjones.com (END) DOW JONES NEWS 041102 05:54 PM