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: Bob Crist who wrote (15201)	12/19/1997 8:37:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Yes, I actually agree with you. Disabling IE is only a temporary measure. Cheryl's arguments for clearly requiring full removal versus disabling are excellent and to the point.

To: Bob Crist who wrote (15201)	12/19/1997 9:15:00 PM
From: John Donahoe	Respond to of 24154

RE: "The order says that MSFT must remove all files that are shipped with Explorer 3.0" What! Are you implying that the words of the order have meaning? What a quaint thought. JD

To: Bob Crist who wrote (15201)	12/20/1997 1:26:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

>This brings >into question the wisdom of permitting the federal government to micro-manage >web browsing software. No, what it does is highlight the problems and ambiguities in the phrases "other product" and "integrated product" in the Consent Decree. Here are my thoughts on what Microsoft might say: The Consent Decree does not empower the Court to tell Microsoft simply to disable IE, just as it does not empower him to tell Microsoft simply to remove the icons from the desktop. (This goes back to the point I made a long time ago about the declarations by the OEMs re Microsoft not letting them delete the icon off the desktop being irrelevant, since an icon is not an "other product" under the Decree.) If he did that, he would, in essence, be telling Microsoft it cannot build "integrated products," which the consent decree expressly permits. The judge is only empowered by the Consent Decree to tell Microsoft to unbundle two completly separate products. Tell the judge to take the code that's disabled by the uninstall procedure and run it on another computer that has no previously installed IE. If it runs, great, it's a separate product, and he can order them to disable it under the Decree. If it won't run, then what we have is an "integrated product." I'd be curious to hear what the less "technically challenged" than I have to say about that possible argument. Oh, the price we pay when we don't define what we mean up front . . .