To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (14351 ) 11/23/1997 2:41:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Respond to of 24154
It is interesting to note that, while Micorsoft frames the issue as plans to include "internet technology" in Windows, the DOJ frames the issue specifically as IE. Well, Microsoft goes all over the place in what the issue is. Here's a quote, apparently direct from Microsoft, from Fred Moody's version of the revisionist history:"This work," the memorandum states, regarding Microsoft's development of Internet Explorer, "began long before Netscape, the beneficiary of the DOJ's petition, was founded in April 1994, and thus the work could not have been motivated by any desire to injure Netscape. The DOJ became aware of Microsoft's plans to include Internet-related features in Windows 95 when it subpoenaed large numbers of documents from Microsoft in late 1993 and early 1994 These documents detailed Microsoft's plans to make Internet-related technologies an integral part of Chicago[the code name for Windows 95 during its development] . In particular, the documents show that before Microsoft even knew of Netscape's existence, it was planning to include 'Integrated Net Browsing' in Windows 95 in the form of an 'FTP/Gopher/Web unified client.'." (from abcnews.com . Moody gave a link to the actual filing at www.microsoft.com, but it's apparently not there anymore, or I would have verified the quote.) Most other places, Microsoft hedges and talks about "internet technology" and "browser technology". Internet technology, sure, TCP/IP. Browser technology? MSN, maybe. FTP/Gopher/Web unified client sounds like the web browser we all know and love, but again, if that was in the works since before Netscape's founding, why the Spyglass deal in Jan. '95? Throw the first one away? I think DOJ is correct to frame the issue as "Web browser", and Microsoft is muchly trying to muddy the waters, but that's just me. The judge will decide. Cheers, Dan.