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: Dermot Burke who wrote (14405)	11/24/1997 1:51:00 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

RE:Frankly, it may be too late to help Netscape, since new users have very little ways to aquire the Netscape Browser--it is , from a practical standpoint, near impossible. Think about it. Yeah, you've summed up the browser war quite nicely in that sentence. It's over and I don't think Netscape knows what hit them. Everytime I reinstall Win95 on my computer I have to install IE also so I can get on the web and download Communicator. I've got three CD's lying around with IE on it, but even though I bought a Communicator license I have to go download the 17MB file everytime. I love Communicator, but someday it won't be option. Bummer. Why can't Netscape see that they need to get their browser into the hands of more consumers just to have a viable business model in the future? Bob

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (14405)	11/24/1997 11:14:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>Bill has to fight the Browser/OS issue with the DOJ because the integration issue is >the device MSFT uses to monopolize and profit exhorbitantly. No, Bill is not fighting this to preserve his "core competency." The things Justice is asking Bill to do are truly trivial: 1. Don't force OEMs and resellers to put IE on their machines in order to get a license for Windows. Will this affect Microsoft's "core competency"? No. IE will still be free, even if DOJ wins. So most resellers, if only to maintain good relations with Microsoft, will continue to put IE on their machines regardless of the outcome of this case. And who knows, there might even be some independent customer demand for the thing. ;) 2. Don't force OEMs and resellers to run and tell Microsoft every time someone wants to talk to the government. Will this affect Microsoft's "core competency"? No. If you believe Microsoft, they've, in essence, already agreed not to do this. This may be the most lasting postive outcome of this exercise. 3. Tell the masses how to uninstall IE off their systems. Will this affect Microsoft's "core competency"? No. In fact, it will improve Microsoft's ability to distribute the product, since people like me will no longer be afraid to load it for fear of never being able get it off (sorry about the bad pun). So why is Bill fighting this thing? Bill is fighting this for appearances' sake. A victory would do him a lot of good right about here. If he wins, he can use that victory to try to defang the DOJ and neutralize the "antitrust strategy" being used against him by competitors. He can again intimidate the very OEMs who Justice claims to be protecting by bringing this petition. It will be like Vietnam or El Salvador in the '60's and '80's, or like Columbia now: "The government can't protect you." He can slow down antitrust enforcement not only against him but against a raftof companies. Janet Reno is going to have a lot of explaining to do if she loses this high-profile case. To the extent a loss here would intimidate Justice lawyers or cause them to hesitate in their overall investigation, to the extent it would cause Congress to cut their budget, chalk that up as a win for Bill. Most important, he can look invincible. >Justice must stop >windows integration of key internet apps(streaming is at risk) at this critical >juncture. Well, if that's what they want to do, then they need a better vehicle than this Consent Decree. I still think it does not apply. From what I can tell it appears to have been primarily concerned with per processing licensing practices and the like, not tying, and certainly not the internet. Justice goes on and on about the "plain meaning" of ambiguous terms like "integrated product" and "other product." What do these words mean? I don't know. How do we find out? We look at the intent of the parties who drafted the agreement. What does Justice have to say about the intent of the parties? In spite of all their dancing around the issue, not much so far. >Frankly, it may be too late to help Netscape, since new users have very >little ways to aquire the Netscape Browser--it is , from a practical standpoint, near >impossible.Think about it. Fortunately, however much Netscape may be helping the Justice Department to overplay its hand, the two are separate entities -- which means a loss for Justice, should it come to that, is not necessarily a loss for Netscape. Netscape will still be around long after Janet Reno, Bill Clinton and the whole current Washington crowd are long gone and forgotten. Nor am I pessimistic about Netscape, regardless of the outcome of the DOJ thing. If Justice wins, it will be great PR. If Justice loses, it may slow them down in the short run (and perhaps present a buying opportunity), but in the long run it will not make any difference. Companies rise and fall on their products, not on legal strategies. Netscape's products are excellent, and, as long as they don't rely too heavily on Justice, they should do fine. The Netscape Browser is out there, on their website for anyone who wants to use it, along with a growing collection of content. They also have a bunch of servers and other products.