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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (15667)	12/29/1997 7:58:00 PM
From: micromike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

DOJ: MS flouts court order www5.zdnet.com Included in today's filing were two exhibits - one from PC Week Labs and one from Computer Reseller News - that describe how IE and Windows 95 can be separated. Throughout the brief, the DOJ says Microsoft was not told how to comply with the court order, adding that the company's attempts to comply resulted in it "jerry-rigging" its product by removing files that did not need to be removed. --- Once again it sure looks like a no brainer on Sept 13 on this one. I hope MS uses these same loser lawyers and lame tactics when they meet Sun over the Java suit. Mike

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (15667)	12/30/1997 12:33:00 AM
From: Schiz	Respond to of 24154

I wanted to copy part of this link but It's not working right. (Probably a windows bug, I hope I finish this message before my computer crashes) Microsoft says that the judge defined ie as the code that made up the program. He said the code not the file that the code resides in. Is there something I'm missing here (I am a mere mortal so it's probably beyond my comprehension - That's probably why I can't copy and paste the quote from the article, I wonder if microsoft has any software that could help me comprehend, they should bundle it with windows so everyone can learn the microsoft way of thinking) Correction (I just went and read the paragraph again). The code they they sell as IE retail so if the entire files are on the ie disk, they should be counted as the program (provided that there's no wording on the box to suggest that an upgrade to windows is bundled on the same disk) I'm not a legal expert by any means but I'm pretty sure that there's a rule when interpreting contracts that the exact wording is not always followed verbatim. What the parties involved believe to be the context of the contract is also considered. This is used for contracts signed by people not familiar with the language that the contract was signed in to protect them from being taken advantage of by agreeing to clauses that they don't even understand. It would seem pretty obvious that the doj does not fully understand the technical language that microsoft is using (they are mere mortals so how could we actually expect them to understand?). ntprod.moneynet.com@NEWS-P2*news-p2&Index=0&HeadlineURL=NewsHeadlines.asp&DISABLE_FORM=