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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (13578)	10/23/1997 2:29:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>Well, like a moth to a candle, I just could not resist Story of my life ;-))))) BTW, which judge gets this now? the judge from the original suit, the judge who upheld the consent decree on appeal, or someone else? Is there 'ownership' on this one? Chaz

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (13578)	10/23/1997 2:42:00 AM
From: XiaoYao	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Very good analyze, although I didn't understand very well some words. IE 1.0 was original shipped with Win95. So is it part of Win95 just as other accessories? Here is Internet time A browser vs. browser timeline msnbc.com Here is another link: msnbc.com

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (13578)	10/23/1997 4:30:00 AM
From: Tom Simpson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>I'll go with my original thesis: if Internet Explorer is NOT a >separate "product" from Windows, then Microsoft wins. If it is, then >Microsoft is hosed. And if it is not, one would suppose that Internet Explorer on a Mac runs within its virtual Windows shell? What the hell, complex numbers have an imaginary part, why not products? :o) Best Regards.....Tom

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (13578)	10/23/1997 9:36:00 PM
From: Wilson Picket	Respond to of 24154

<<I'll go with my original thesis: if Internet Explorer is NOT a separate "product" from Windows, then Microsoft wins. If it is, then Microsoft is hosed. >> At first glance it would appear that Internet Explorer is just a program on top of the OS. But by Microsoft's tortured logic, ( arguing that "retrieval of (internet) information" is an OS function - this from the conference call responding to the DOJ charge) they maintain that IE is "integral to" Windows 95. And by the careful wording of the Consent Degree, which they obviously went to great pains to wrangle into the language, an integrated enhancement is permitted and they are within their rights to insist that it always appear with Win 95. Will they be able to convince the judge that this is so? MSFT's lawyers will give it their best shot. They also maintain that IE for MAC is not IE for Windows. They probably have a good case here.