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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (16236)	1/18/1998 6:32:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>So, I gather, then, that under your appraoch, the "product" would be the executable file only?<<< None of this matters. It is sad to see that MSFTs attempts to obscure things have taken hold even of such a fine mind. Any solution to the small issue of the browser in particular must accomplish this: 1. Without some component to be provided separately, which must be purchased, Windows will not have a browser capability. However, everything else will work. 2. With the purchase of a browser package, on separate media, on an equal footing from any vendor, working browser functions may be added to one's computer. What the solution to the browser issue should, IMHO, provide in addition to the above: 1. Not loading down my system with DLLs belonging to products I don't use. Right now various MSFT DLLs I don't seem to use from products I don't have, seem to occupy many megabytes of disk space they are not paying me for. 2. Applications that launch Internet functions like browsing or pipes should do so through a common API that all browser makers can connect to. So you can choose to have your Exchange email program, for instance, launch either Netscape or Explorer to see a web page when an embedded URL link is clicked on with the mouse. Same for Word, or Excel, or the rest of it. There is no reason these programs can't 'launch the browser' rather than 'launch our browser.' 3. A clean modular division of product that would result in a better maintained and enhanced operating system. In the general solution to the problem of MSFT repeatedly causing the same general kind of crisis, which they have done for years to the detriment of the industry, I believe MSFT should be broken into at least three parts: 1. Operating systems, LANs, base level internet access, programming tools for using those OS's. 2. Applications like IE, Word, Excel, et cetera. 3. Media efforts: MSN, MSNBC, Slate, cable investments, satellite, et cetera. This would leave them with some unfair leverage (e.g. still possibly making it hard on Symantec and Borland when it comes to writing language products), but the existing problems would be lessened. All three would be free to move into new (non-monopolistic) product areas, and would be encouraged to compete with each other when the need arose. Chaz

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (16236)	1/18/1998 1:10:00 PM
From: Justin Banks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Jerry - So, I gather, then, that under your appraoch, the "product" would be the executable file only? Or would you take the approach that requiring licensing only part of the "other product," but not the whole product, as a condition of licensing Windows does not violate the Consent Decree? One can't require licensing of shared libraries that only provide support to an application. For all we know, MSFT has put their TCP/IP stuff in a library that IE uses. While that would be essential to make IE run, it's not required that it be removed in order for IE to be considered removed. In other words, could Microsoft require all of the files associated with IE except the actual .exe to be licensed as a condition of licensing Windows and not be in violation of the Consent Decree? I don't think that would be a violation. Most (all?) of the files associated with IE are shared libraries that are used by a variety of different applications. They are a part of the OS. They are not a part of IE any more than the runtime C++ library is, assuming IE is written in C++. What if Microsoft required licensing of the .exe file but left out some other, obscure files, such that the other product fuctioned but was not comlete? Would this violate the Consent Decree? So you got the icon but the product wouldn't run? I'd like to expand on Chaz' engine analogy. Pretend I'm GM (or Chrysler, or Ford, or whoever). I build a product that makes the cars I build run only (or better, or whatever) on GM brand gasoline. I require my dealers to license this thingy in every GM they sell, and will only let them sell it if they only sell my brand of cars. After a year or so, the Justice dept. files suit that requires me to stop bundling this thingy with my new cars. So I say, well, if I take it out, I've got to take out the fuel injectors and the entire gas line, because those things are part of my gas thingy. Would that be a valid argument? For me to say that I can ship a car without my gas thingy but the car won't start? In order to comply with the court order, all I would have to do is remove my gas thingy. Sure, I could require that my dealers accept or license my fuel injectors or my gas line, or my engine block, or whatever, but that's irrelevant to the issue. The issue is the functionality that I've introduced that's bad for competition and provides me with an unfair advantage in the marketplace. -justinb