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: damniseedemons who wrote (13629)	10/24/1997 2:18:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

But, in Compaq's deposition, they said that two browsers would unneccesarily take up extra hard drive "real estate." Since they wanted to keep Netscape, that indicates that they would have liked to remove IE (not just the icon, the whole thing). Well, I suppose, except that, if you go to the Dan's link, infoworld.com which is the most complete transcript I have seen to date, he makes the "real estate" comment in response to a question about why Compaq is not carrying NetCaster. Q. Why has Compaq, to your knowledge, not considered Netcaster today as an alternative to Internet Explorer 4.0? A. I would say that the major reason that Compaq hasn't is because the category of browser is now fulfilled with the Internet Explorer product which will be a part of the Microsoft operating system. Therefore, Compaq will get this as part of the operating system code and that category will be filled. So therefore we would not have to go out and negotiate something separately and potentially pay some fees, and also take up additional real estate on our hard drive. Of course, the excerpt stops here, so we can't see if there are any additional comments that put this one in context. But my response would be that while this is a nice statement about why Compaq is not carrying Netcaster, it in no way proves that Microsoft conditions licensing of Windows on also taking IE, which is what the Consent Decree (arguably) prohibits. All it shows is that, because IE is included with Windows, Compaq felt a lack of motivation to negotiate a deal with Netscape. Maybe I'm splitting too many hairs here. If you put this depo testimony together with other evidence, such as Microsoft's statements since the Petition was filed, an inference can certainly be drawn that, had Compaq actually asked Microsoft if it could take IE, the product, off the computer, Microsoft would have said, "no." But, this testimony does not say that Compaq almost have its license pulled for trying to take IE off the computer. According to this testimony,Compaq almost had its license pulled because, having put IE on the computer, it did not want to put IE's icon on the desktop. The difference is significant because the Consent Decree prohibits Microsoft from conditioning the licensing of a covered product upon the licensing of another product. It does not prohibit Microsoft from saying how a company should install a product once the company has agreed to take it.