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 (13704)	10/26/1997 12:23:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Of the three of us, your wife is probably the wisest. Nevertheless, here's my response to your questions: > But for the first question, what the > decree actually means, it seems to be a question of interpretation, not proof. I think this is correct. People will introduce into evidence the writings and oral statements they say constitute the contract. As long as the underlying facts are undisputed as to which writings and oral statements make up the contract, the wording, who said what, etc., the interpretation of the contract will probably be a question of law. >Microsoft doesn't just get to argue that they're not in violation of their interpretation >do they? Well, they will certainly make that argument. But, there are two parts to this issue: 1. Is their interpretation the correct one, and 2. Are they in violation of whatever is the correct interpretation? Microsoft's position, if not its specific conduct in particular cases, appears to be pretty much undisputed. As far as I can tell, at any rate, they have made it very clear that they will only let an OEM license Windows if the OEM also licenses IE. So the issue boils down to whether their doing so violates the Consent Decree. They seem to be pretty confident that it does not. The problem here is that the terms "other product" and "integrated product" are not defined in the Consent Decree and, at least in my view, are ambiguous, i.e., susceptible of more than one reasonable meaning. My guess is that Microsoft will have its interpretation of these terms and DOJ will have thiers. Each side will then be able to introduce extrinsic evidence (evidence outside the four corners of the contract -- things like industry custom and practice, what was said during negotiations, whether Microsoft has treated IE as a separate product in the past, etc.) to prove that their interpretation is correct. My guess is that this is where the real dispute in this case will be.