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 (16066)	1/13/1998 10:58:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

That's Mr. Bill to you. Oh nooooo, Mr. Bill!!!

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (16066)	1/13/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: drmorgan	Respond to of 24154

This is not exactly the all exciting media loving DOJ/MS case but just another keep the MSFT law firm busy, as though they don't already have enough cases. 3Com mulls a slap across Microsoft's palm zdnet.com Derek

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (16066)	1/13/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

MS, judge differ on compliance news.com Well, a few sparks here, but I'm not holding my breath. Not that I ever was. The kinder, gentler Microsoft still seems a bit confused about who's in charge in the courtroom. The day's testimony was highlighted by verbal sparring between Judge Jackson and Microsoft's lawyers. Speaking before a packed courtroom, company attorneys attempted to blame the confusion regarding the judge's temporary order on the government. During one pointed exchange, Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky said the company had carefully reviewed government briefs in deciding how to comply with Jackson's ruling to provide a version of Windows 95 without the Internet Explorer Web browser to PC makers. Before Urowsky could go on, the judge interrupted: "What the government requested is not the same as what I ordered." Urowsky replied: "I beg to differ with you." After more discussion, Jackson said firmly: "It is my language and my language alone that is at issue here." Well, I guess they told it to the judge. On the other hand, this Glenn Weadock guy sounds like a wuss. After presenting the opening arguments, the Justice Department showed a videotape of expert witness Glenn Weadock, a computer consultant and author of Bulletproofing Windows 95, as he removed IE 3.0 from Windows 95 using the Add/Remove programs utility. In afternoon testimony, Weadock declared that after removing IE from Windows 95 using the utility, visible access to Internet Explorer was removed--along with Window's Internet Connection Wizard and access to AT&T's WorldNet service software--but that the operating system was otherwise unharmed. Yawn. In cross-examination, Microsoft attorney Steven Holley repeatedly tried to corner Weadock into stating that Internet Explorer and Windows 95 are one product. Holley asked if Weadock could identify, from a list of more that 220 files, the files Microsoft should instruct OEMs to remove in order to be in compliance with the court's order. Weadock identified "iexplore.exe," the executable file associated with Internet Explorer. "What other files should Microsoft give OEMs the option to remove?" asked Holley. "I don't feel comfortable saying," replied Weadock. "I couldn't draw a box around the files that constitute IE." Holley continued his questioning on what specific files Weadock thinks make up Internet Explorer, to no avail. "I can't cite specific C code or give you a list of files that make up IE. Some are shared," said Weadock. Judge Jackson eventually interjected Holley's questioning, saying "the witness has said several times that he cannot do that [say where IE ends and Windows 95 begins], and I think you have tested the limits." Well, it wasn't exactly his job, but I think he could have done a little research on the matter. Microsoft could have done a better job too, of course, I'm not quite sure what the deal is here but are Windows dll's that ill-documented that nobody can say what's in which? Sheesh, and this is the software that will rule the world? I'll repeat my (not very deep) question, of those 220-228 files, which are standard Windows runtime from before IE, which generate html, which are needed to display it, what's the linkage? Not that I expect an answer, but nobody else seems to want one either. Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (16066)	1/13/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Daniel et al, Beat you to the punch ... this has got lovely stuff: biz.yahoo.com Urowsky should try out for a leading role in Alice in Wonderland ... after a pointed 'exchange' with the judge about whose language they should have followed in deciding how to comply, the judge's actual order or DOJ comments, .... "Jackson said repeatedly the company should have looked at his language instead (well duh). He finally asked if MSFT had given any consideration to seeking clarification from him." Shortly after this we have Urowsky's piece de resistance: "It is the government and not MSFT that is the cause of any confusion that might have been created in the mind of the court and the view of the public." I'm sure the judge appreciates being told (respectfuly bien sur) that he's confused. For this statement, Urowsky earns a place in the Alice in Wonderland Hall of Fame. Joking aside, I'm surprised how lame MSFT's defence is. Apparently the judge can rule from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing or issue a written opinion later. I would not be surprised if he does the former and finds ol' MSFT in contempt. Wonder if he'll go for the $1 million per day fine .... retroactive to Dec. 11 of course!! regards, Mike