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 (15825)	1/6/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Even Microsoft's Internet Browser Defends Itself nytimes.com Oh dear, it didn't take long to stumble on some timely commentary from the press faction of the international ilk conspiracy. Are we all going to be liable under RICO for triple damages for defaming Mighty Microsoft? One of the odder aspects of the Justice Department's case regarding the Microsoft Corporation's Internet Explorer is the way the product can speak for itself. It will probably not testify in its own defense in courts of law, but it can deliver serious propaganda in the court of public opinion, as my wife discovered over the holidays when she accidentally clicked the browser's "Microsoft" button and was treated to the headline "D.O.J.'s Request for New Court Order Shows Internet Explorer is Integrated." That particular phrasing was, to say the least, a great leap of interpretation. The entry went on to say more matter-of-factly, "In court papers filed Dec. 23, Microsoft says Internet Explorer is an integrated feature of the Windows 95 operating system, contrary to what the D.O.J. has been saying for the last two months." Links to "what others are saying" led to quotations from folks who were saying nice things about Microsoft and mean things about the Government. But it did not mention the several trade publications whose experts referred to Microsoft's contentions with phrases like "that claim appears to be wrong" (in Cnet) and "Microsoft misspoke" (in PC Week). Hey, you read it here first! Well, maybe not, if you're ignoring all the "crap" I post, as Iain "Dogfood" Macdonald would advise you to. Much better to accept what Microsoft's lawyers say as "the truth". I mean, that's their job, right? After Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of Federal District Court required Microsoft to offer computer makers a version of Windows 95 without Explorer, the company disingenuously chose to interpret his order as demanding that every last file it ships with the retail edition of Explorer be stripped from the bowserless version of Windows 95. The catch is that some of those files are revised versions of essential program code required by Windows and application programs. When the retail edition of Explorer is installed, those files merely overwrite older versions already on the machine's hard drive. It is no surprise that removing them entirely causes major problems. As a feckless alternative, Microsoft offers computer makers the version of Windows 95 it still sells at retail, which has many known defects and lacks several features supporting current hardware. That may or may not adhere to the letter of the judge's decree but certainly is not in line with its spirit. That was my interpretation too. Somehow, you Microphiles seem to think that nobody can possibly see through this little game, and that the "beyond the comprehension of mere mortals" line will hold up in court. To repeat another line, as is my wont, if Microsoft holds the Judge in contempt, I think it's reasonable for the Judge to hold Microsoft in contempt. But again, that's not a legal opinion. Microsoft's publicity machine continues to muddy the waters by confusing "Internet-related features" with a full-blown browser and complaining of Government meddling with "rapid innovation." But it seems reasonable that once a consent decree is signed, the Government should be expected to enforce it. Nah, the government's proper role here is to make the world safe fro Microsoft. Get those darn Chinese to pay for their software! They don't have the proper respect for intellectual property rights! Of course, the Chinese government doesn't have much respect for individual rights in general, either, but that's no concern of Bill's, so it shouldn't be any concern of the U.S. when it's time to negotiate with China. I mean, what's more important, a few hundred thousand political dissidents in jail, or making Windows the official OS of China? Cheers, Dan, mordantly as ever.