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 (14670)	12/6/1997 1:25:00 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Respond to of 24154

Microsoft said they were going to teach Judge Jackson about the software business and straighten up this little misunderstanding. There didn't seem to be much teaching going on. This exchange seems to be coming out of pretty good knowledge: Jackson submitted Urowsky to repeated questions about why IE is different from such programs as Word or Excel. He asked if there were any technological reasons why Microsoft couldn't integrate those two applications into the OS. Urowsky's replied that it would make no economic sense but, when pressed, said there was no technological barrier to doing so. Some day soon we may be discussing the software industry with an OS that does what an OS should. That is, an interface between the applications and the hardware, open to all. That should be pretty easy for all these hot shot programmers to come up with. Harvey P.S. I'd love to read the "when pressed" sequence. Anyone find a transcript?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14670)	12/6/1997 2:33:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Well, Dan, it's really hard to tell from a judge's questioing on the bench what he or she is thinking, and from these second-hand sources written by non-legal journalists, it's almost impossible to get a meaningful handle on how to read the tea-leaves. What surprises me the most is that there was apparently no discussion of discovery. It may be that the topic was discussed and the jurnalists simply have overlooked reporting it, but if there was any discussion, I would have expected it to show up in the articles. I view the absence of such a discussion a postive for DOJ. The one comment made by a DOJ official, apparently outside the hearing, was: "We hope that the judge's rulings will indicate that there will be no need for further discovery," the Justice official said. >Urowsky went on to say it wasn't that Microsoft's efforts could not be >challenged, but that they would need to be challenged under the Sherman >Antitrust Act. I view this line and the Judge's questioning about whether DOJ can amend the complaint as positives for Microsoft. If they can amend the existing complaint or file a new one, why construe this consent decree to apply to IE/Windows bundling? >Urowsky's replied that it would make no economic sense but, when pressed, >said there was no technological barrier to doing so. I view this line of questioning and the judge's comments about having an "intellectual problem" with the case as being positives for Microsoft. Maybe he's seeing the futility of this exercise. I think an interesting question is: "When do two separate products sold together become an 'integrated product' within the meaning of the decree?" Maybe the "intellectual problem" line was the judge's way of trying to come to grips with this problem. Another comment I find significant is this one, reported by the New York Times: At the same time, Justice Department attorney Phillip R. Malone said he believed an agreement on the dispute could be reached ''if the court would send us and Microsoft off to negotiate'' a resolution.