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: Bearded One who wrote (15230)	12/20/1997 2:04:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>Microsoft is trying to show how complicated things are. In reality, the issue is very >simple-- if the code is used to bring up IE when the user clicks on an html file, get >rid of it unless the code is useful to to the OS for some other purpose. The problem here is not technical. Of course it's easy to "uninstall" IE if all you are doing is disabling some of the files you previously installed. However, IE is the "Hotel California" of browsers: you can delete it any time you like, but it will never leave. I am living proof of that. I deleted IE ages ago, but what's left of it still rears its ugly head to screw up what I am doing from time to time (query whether Microsoft's distribution of what's on my hard drive would comply with the consent decree). And I bet Microsoft will say that the part of IE that never leaves is necessary to run Windows, and that the part that got disabled/deleted is just useless bits and pieces of code without the part that's left behind. The problem is legal: the Consent Decree does not empower the judge to order Microsoft to disable bits and pieces of code, but only to order Microsoft to unbundle "other (complete) products" from the OS (he may disagree, but that's how I see it). And that's what he ordered Microsoft to do and what Microsoft claims it is trying to do. I'm open to correction by anyone who thinks I have this issue wrong.

To: Bearded One who wrote (15230)	12/20/1997 7:18:00 AM
From: Flair	Respond to of 24154

Bearded One: This shows that "Windows95" and "IE" indeed has an intersection of codes, i.e., sharing some code and having dependency. That intersected piece of code is considered as a part of IE, since it is needed to port IE to other platforms (e.g., Mac, Solaris, etc.) Thus, DOJ's claim that Windows95 and IE is not "integrated", but purely contractual bundling is not an accuate statement. If DOJ and court thinks "disabling" is the same as "removing", and Microsoft may likely to settle at the judge's view and comply the order. IMHO, cars and car radios are not a good analogy to this lawsuit. Microsoft aggressive legal practice got backfire from DOJ and court. Now DOJ and court will do whatever they can to save face, e.g., hiring New York superlawyer David Boies.