SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: vinod Khurana who wrote (4209)12/11/1997 7:33:00 PM
From: vinod Khurana  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
Split decision for Microsoft

Computers makers won't have to bundle;
contempt charge rejected

December 11, 1997: 7:14 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Microsoft Corp. Thursday
was ordered to stop requiring computer makers to
bundle its Internet Explorer Web browser as a
condition to include the Windows 95 operating
system on their computers.
However, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson Thursday rejected a civil contempt charge
brought by the Justice Department which was
seeking a fine of $1 million a day be levied against
the company.
Jackson also ordered that a special judicial officer
be appointed to consider the facts and legal
precedents that applied to the case.
Justice Department officials said they were
reviewing the ruling and would formally discuss it at a
news conference later Thursday.
Microsoft officials were not immediately available
to comment.
The U.S. Justice Department had asked the court
to hold Microsoft in contempt for alleged
anti-competitive behavior in the Internet browser
market.
The agency's antitrust division charged the world's
largest software company violated a 1995 consent
decree by trying to use its leverage to require PC
manufacturers to license and distribute Microsoft's
Internet browser, Internet Explorer along with the
company's new operating system Windows 95.

home | digitaljam | contents | search | stock quotes | hel



To: vinod Khurana who wrote (4209)12/11/1997 9:21:00 PM
From: Li Cai  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
V.K,

Could you explain why MSFT 1, and DOJ 0? Is that mistyping? Do you mean MSFT 0, and DOJ 1?

Confused.