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 (13835)	10/30/1997 8:36:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Sal, the whole issue of ownership of the pristine Windows screen is a new one, this year, as I understand it. OEM's used to be able to put up whatever startup screen they wanted. Now, Microsoft doesn't want anything changed. Because of their monopoly, they can dictate contract terms to their liking. The only thing stopping them is that pesky Sherman act and various follow on legislation. As ever, the precise interpretation of those laws in this context is up to the judge. I won't venture a legal opinion on any of this; my original phrase was "philosophical inconsistency". Microsoft wants to, on the one hand, assert ownership of the sacred Windows desktop down to the bit level, presumably. On the other hand, it's dedicating its massive resources to fragmenting Java and making Microsoft's version as unportable as possible. If you don't see any inconsistency there, I'd say you have a Microsoftian definition of the word. Of course, it is consistent in a Microsoft sort of way, what's mine is mine and what's yours oughta be mine. Microsoft can, in general, do what it wants. I don't think they have to "embrace and demolish" Java or establish that all important monopolistic death grip on the internet to be a successful company, but Bill hasn't asked my opinion lately. If they want to preach about the "integrity and uniformity of the Windows Experience", and send out the "Compaq was trying to break Windows into pieces and pick what out what they want" company line far and wide, all over the precious IE icon, I think ridicule is an appropriate response. They are greatly exagerating what was going on, regardless of legal issues. Might go down well with the true believers, but it doesn't hold up very well if you think words mean something. Cheers, Dan.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (13835)	10/30/1997 8:47:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

Don't forget it's not just about the contracts. It's also about what the judge or jury thinks is right. Chaz

To: damniseedemons who wrote (13835)	11/3/1997 8:21:00 PM
From: Doug Fowler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Sal: The real question is whether Microsoft has ever allowed the so-called standard Windows to be modified by the OEM. For example, has it allowed Solitaire to be removed from an OEM version? What if Compaq has a major customer who doesn't want its employees playing Solitaire? They want 100,000 new Compaq computers, but don't want Solitaire included and they don't want to have to remove it machine by machine. If Microsoft has allowed the removal of ANY pieces of what it calls Windows, then they have a very weak argument when their lawyers say "Windows is not a Chinese menu."