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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13663)	10/24/1997 2:16:00 PM
From: drmorgan	Respond to of 24154

Futurist George Gilder Speaks Out on Microsoft and the Justice Department in Exclusive Interview with CMP's Network Computing biz.yahoo.com Derek

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13663)	10/24/1997 2:32:00 PM
From: drmorgan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I find these Gilder comments interesting.. What Microsoft needs to do, Gilder says, is to create "a platform-independent Java component system working across the network and breaking away from the bloatwear it is currently selling." Will Microsoft do that? Gilder is confident that Gates "will figure out how to deal with this present crisis in a positive way." He says that Microsoft is at "an unfortunate point in its history when it will have to change more drastically than those at the helm want." It's hard for those in charge to see a need to change, he says, because the model has been very successful. But Gilder predicts that Microsoft's growth rate will "fall dramatically over the next several years, and what seemed unstoppable will be more mortal than most people imagine." "I think," says Gilder, "that Gates will turn to Java to save Microsoft, and I think his contribution will be very valuable, but if he tries to wage a tactical war over Java and to prevent Sun from benefiting from Java, it's unseemly, perverse and a mistake that he will regret. He didn't invent this technology, and he has to deal with the companies that did invent it. And he can live with that." MSFT's growth rate will fall dramatically. I've been thinking about Windows 98 and trying to understand how it will be a big seller. For millions of people (certainly 3.1 users should/will upgrade?) I see no compelling reason to upgrade. People who are buying systems now already get the Fat32 update. IE4 will be integral part of the OS, maybe. Who cares? Win98 is overhyped and some of the stuff like Fat32 should be provided to existing users as fix pack! Hmmm, perhaps Gilder is on to something in regards to less growth. How will this impact shareholders? Does anyone know what it will cost to upgrade '95 to '98? Derek

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13663)	10/24/1997 8:57:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>I'm confused. If Microsoft threatened Compaq with loss of license for actually >removing IE, the program, it would violate the consent decree, but threatening them >with loss of license for removing the desktop icon is OK? This sounds like positively >Microsoftian logic to me, but I'm not a lawyer, and in-house counsel doesn't want to >talk to me about this stuff anymore. You don't need to be a lawyer -- your opinion may be better than a lawyer's since you know more about software. Just go back and read the relevant provision of the Consent Decree: "Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products)" It talks about the conditioning of a licensing agreement upon the licensing of any other product. I assume for purposes of this Decree that an Icon on a desktop is not considered a separate "product." Maybe it is in some circumstances -- just ask any seller of clip art -- but I don't think so in this case. The icon is (from Microsoft's perspective -- I think it's trivial) a critical part of the IE "product," which, I gather from the evidence I've seen, is something Compaq never said it did not want (and maybe I'm wrong about that). Compaq having agreed to accept the IE "product" without being forced to or having Windows conditioned upon it, it seems to me that there is nothing in the Consent Decree which prohibits Microsoft from requiring Compaq to present the product to the consumer the way Microsoft wants it presented. And that includes presenting the icon as part of the (don't gag now) "Windows Experience." I wonder if the same arguments could also be made with respect to Micron. Here's some more "Microsoftian logic" for you to respond to. wired.com