The issue here is not what OS stuff IE uses, but what IE stuff the OS uses. The answer has to be little or none. Just look at IE for MacOS or the 'beta' for Solaris for the reason.
Aside: It drives me nuts when code becomes "technology". Of course, the usage here isn't as bad as my favorite example, Windows getting hosed if you installed IE3 over IE4, because of "missing technology" in IE3. I.e. the usual dll hell lack of simple version checking.
I still stand by my old line on this. Microsoft says that everything done to Windows 95 since the retail launch is "part of IE". Like all applications, say Office97 or no doubt lesser things too, a bunch of updated "core" dll's get shipped with IE. I was a little disappointed that Weadock didn't go into this, but maybe it was a conscious strategy to avoid getting sucked into some trap where getting too specific would allow Microsoft to jump on some trivial mistake.
I don't know, but I'd guess there's likely to be an element of what constitutes a "good faith effort" in this. Microsoft playing dumb may seem like a clever strategy, I got my doubts, and it's not exactly consistent with the alleged "respectful" PR line. I guess the line now comes down to "Respectfully, Judge, this is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, or at least stupid lawyers and judges, except maybe that Special Master character, but we'll take care of him by other means". I think it's comprehensible enough, or would be if Microsoft felt like explaining it. But maybe I'm wrong, and it's all a philosophical imponderable, like the Jungian duality of man, the yin/yang thing.
And one final aside: I wouldn't actually advise people to avoid IE4 at this point, unless they're satisfied with their current system and don't want to risk breaking it. I used to worry about it breaking my fragile Windows 95 systems, but sheesh, how much worse could it get? It doesn't seem to have harmed my NT. It seems that by installing IE4 you at least are assured of getting a full, up-to-date and consistent set of Windows dll's that way, sort of like the big NT sp3. About the same size, too. I don't think this particular form of bundling is particularly "ethical", in some sense of the word, but I guess it's one of those "standard Microsoft business practice" things we all have to live with.
On the antitrust front, I'd say the escalation of the consent decree action is curious. But, as I've said before, the Sherman act is still on the books, if Microsoft gets off on procedural grounds I'd imagine a worse fate may await them.
Once it determines that a new company is a threat, Microsoft can deploy its integration strategy with a vengeance. In September 1995, Paul Maritz, the executive in charge of Microsoft's operating-system business, met with executives of Intel Corp., the leading microchip maker. It was a month after Netscape had sold shares to the public and the Internet start-up was suddenly a hot company.
When the discussion turned to Netscape, one Intel executive, who asked not to be identified, recalled Maritz saying: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free."
Contrast:
DOJ lawyers are charged with what they contend is little more than straightforward enforcement of laws prohibiting leveraging of monopoly power in one product to monopolize another. That, they said, makes the case against Microsoft clear. Since Microsoft's operating systems appear on approximately 95 percent of new computers sold each year, the company holds a monopoly in that market segment that cannot be used to establish new monopolies.
I'd say, offhand, that DOJ understands the Sherman act, and that Microsoft's line is they must be immune to the Sherman act, because, well, it interfers with "standard Microsoft business practice". We'll see how it all turns out. Maybe the silent majority of Libertarians and Objectivists will rise up and get Bill the statutory immunity he deserves!
Cheers, Dan. |
