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: cheryl williamson who wrote (15139)	12/19/1997 4:51:00 PM
From: John Donahoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

RE: "The only thing that will change MSFT's behavior and level the playing field, is if the court requires MSFT to physically remove the browser code and make the OS work the same way as it does with the browser code included." I'm not sure this would "change MSFT's behavior and level the playing field," but I agree this is the only solution that makes sense and I believe would satisfy the DOJ. The only problem, other then the Judge's reticence, is that the Judge's ruling requires MSFT to comply immediately. Doing what you suggest may cause unacceptable delays. JD

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (15139)	1/26/1998 8:30:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I wrote this reply on 12/19/97. It looks like that is exactly what has come to pass: Harvey, The way I see it, MSFT's primary objective in this horse race with Netscape is to maintain their real estate holdings inside each and every PC shipped with Windows software, no matter what. You'll notice that they purposely sent instructions to erase the files to OEM's to prove a point: their browser & OS are inextricably inter-twined and separating them will cause the OS to fail. The DOJ leaps upon their irreverence and says "baloney, it's easy to disable IE, it's a process everyone knows will work and still not cause Windows to fail". When they get into court in January (if it gets that far), the DOJ will present its side of the claim for contempt with great fanfare, accusing MSFT of all sorts of bad faith etc... When the judge turns to MSFT lawyers & says "Ok, what do you have to say for yourselves", MSFT lawyers are going to come back with the line, "But your honor, we were trying to comply with the order, we thought you wanted IE removed from Windows, so that's what we did. If all you're saying you want us to do is disable IE, that's simple, we can do that right now & Windows will still work just fine. If that's all you want us to do to comply, great, we'll do it right now." If the judge & DOJ decide that that's ok with them, MSFT is home free & they have a PR victory to boot. After all, disabling IE still leaves all or most of the files in place on the disk. That carries some distinct advantages for Bill Gates & Co.: 1. If it's a 3-step process to disable IE it's only a 3-step process to re-enable IE at some time in the future. If that happens, how is the DOJ going to prove contract tying?? 2. By keeping the extra disk storage for their own product, it means less available storage for a competing product (like Navigator). This may discourage some users from switching. 3. It sets the stage for Windows 98 containing a completely integrated browser that can be similarly "disabled" but only if they lose the anti-trust case in June. 4. MSFT will prove a point: the gov't shouldn't get in the middle of the software business, a business they don't understand. They will claim that the gov't just doesn't know what they want & needs to keep their hands off in the future. Should this occur, the practical effect of the DOJ's case will be very little accomplished. The only thing MSFT will have to do that is different is not require the OEM's to include the browser in the OS if they don't want to do so. But, since the browser is already there, and takes up so much space, it will make Netscape's job very difficult in trying to compete. The only thing that will change MSFT's behavior and level the playing field, is if the court requires MSFT to physically remove the browser code and make the OS work the same way as it does with the browser code included. I'm not certain that the court is inclined to do that, though, if the judge is smart, that is what he will do. This case represents a perfect example of why MSFT should be broken up into OS & applications companies. It can and should be done. cheers, cherylw