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 (13703)	10/25/1997 2:53:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Gerald, this brings up a question I've wanted to ask. It seems there are two issues at hand, what the consent decree actually means and whether Microsoft is in violation. In terms of the second question, I understand that a certain standard of proof may need to be met before penalties may be imposed. But for the first question, what the decree actually means, it seems to be a question of interpretation, not proof. Presumably, the two sides state what they think it means, and the judge decides, right? Maybe the decree gets amended with clarifications, I don't know, but Microsoft doesn't just get to argue that they're not in violation of their interpretation do they? My wife had a couple semesters of Civil Procedure, but she thinks I'm obsessed, and doesn't want to encourage me. Cheers, Dan.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (13703)	10/27/1997 2:25:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>All these retractions are going to have just boatloads of credibility. Don't you think that the judge is going to figure out that, if Microsoft is holding a gun to the OEMs' heads, the OEMs are going to cave and say how it was all just a big misunderstanding by DOJ?<<< These CEOs not only are still worried, they don't want everybody to see how transparently afraid they are. So un-CEO like. >>>The more serious question, the one that really concerns me is, what was the intent of the DOJ people who actually put together the Consent Decree with Microsoft? Did they know that Microsoft was going to bundle IE with Windows as an "integrated product"?<<< What does the word integrated mean? If it means it works transparently and fluidly and effectively with their other products and the OS, then technically they just publish an API, which every publisher gets it's hands on the same time as Microsoft application developers. Maybe the other software houses have input on it. Then you have technical and documentation integration across not only Microsoft products but everybody's products. Which software buyers have been waiting for (unnecessarily) for 40 years. If it means financially integrated, so that a former sub-industry virtually disappears (Outline processor vendors, disk compression vendors, BASIC compiler vendors, windowing/multitasking system vendors etc etc etc) then that is a way different kind of integration. You can have either type of integration without the other. I think that the concept of integration can be used as a plausible sounding PR lever, but there is no very compelling connection between the two kinds of integration, except in the minds of Microsoft employees, fans, and lawyers. That is, there is no necessary connection between the two. Chaz