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: Schiz who wrote (15262)	12/20/1997 3:54:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

About the car/radio analogy, Mr. Dowd, Reg, Sal, and multitudinous paths to Hell: From an architecture viewpoint, what has been done if the OS truly depends on IE is as stupid as running the wiring for the ignition through the on switch for the radio. If a car manufacturer argued that on this basis it was impossible to remove their proprietary brand of radio so that you could, for instance, get a cheaper car or install a Blaupunct (sp?), the judge on the case would simply tell them to stop running the wiring through the radio. And oh, by the way, stop wasting his time with stupid arguments. Now there seem to be two possibilities regarding the possibility of deinstalling IE, and (slightly) different consequent paths for the resulting debate: 1. IE has been entangled with the OS to such a degree that it will be difficult for customers to remove it: a. Is this evidence of being in contempt of various decrees and injunctions? b. Is this evidence of using the MS monopoly position to violate antitrust law? c. Is this evidence of incredibly stupid engineering? d. Should the court order that software changes be made so that it is easier to separate the two? e. Is this prima facie evidence that the company needs to be broken up? f. All of the above? 2. OR, IE is easy to remove from the OS: a. Is this evidence of perjury? b. Would their resistance to removing it, and the contracts to OEMs binding the two unneccessarily, be regarded as willful resistance to the terms of the consent decree? c. Would these actions on the part of Microsoft be properly seen as the actions of a monopolist in the process of violating antitrust law? d. Is this prima facie evidence that the company needs to be broken up? e. All of the above? Aside to Mr. Dowd: Leaving your silly-season libertarian notions out of it for the moment, you seem to have embroiled yourself to no profit in a discussion where four things are over your head vis-a-vis the people you are debating and the legal authorities you seem to question: 1. The technical aspects of the discussion, 2. The legal aspects of the discussion, 3. The political aspects of the discussion, 4. The business aspects of the discussion. However, your wide open ad hominem attacks on the Judge, the government, 95% of the political spectrum, and the other participants here offer some chance of amusement, mainly in the wide mark you leave for retaliatory wit. And you take some of the heat off Reg, who lately has had little support from Sal, who shows signs of having learned a lot lately and now is nearly lost to purposes of the dark forces of the empire (whew!) I hope you will consider sticking around for more, in spite of the bruising you are receiving. Cheers, Chaz