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 : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Ellis Morris who wrote (18957)	4/12/1998 6:17:00 PM
From: David M Gambs	Respond to of 27012

Frank, Our concern should not be with Intel but with the Justice Department poking their noses at Microsoft. Any adverse ruling with regards to Microsoft may have a rippling and devastating effect. They could be tampering with one of the strong economic engines of our economy. The DOJ are not business oriented and should not abuse the power that we entrust them. Hopefully they will review all the facts and proceed with caution, wisdom and discretion. If you do review the facts of what has happened, you can see why the DOJ may bring anti-trust action against MSFT. Let me list some of the points: 1. The apparent use of their position to force IE into Windows 95. 2. The apparent use of their position to force PC assemblers to by Windows 95 with IE. 3. The apparent use of their position to force ISPs to feature IE exclusively (or exclusively on their main Web pages). 4. The apparent use of their position to include the required use of IE in other vendor's software products. 5. The apparent use of their position to force users to have & utilize IE in MSFT's own products. The list could go on but you should get the idea. Each one of these could bring about DOJ anti-trust action. When you have multiple instances, there is a presumption of guilt (even in our justice system) that the offending company is in the wrong (like a rape victim being put on trial). As example: Quicken 98 requires IE 3.x in order to work properly & completely. You cannot use NSC 4.x - even though it has the same capabilities for encryption. The software will not let you do some things without IE 3.x (or higher) installed & usable on your system. The really sad thing here is that there was nothing in their system requirements that indicate a requirement for IE. To upgrade to Outlook 98, MSFT's installer will put IE on your system without so much as a 'by your leave'. If you uninstall IE, Outlook 98 will not work. Further, you cannot re-install Outlook 97. Further still, You cannot uninstall Outlook 97 or Office 97. You must go down to the OS level and manually remove files (in my case all of Office 97) in order to re-install all of Office 97 - then all the patches as well. Needless to say, I am not a happy camper. Now, as to what MSFT could have done that would most likely be acceptable. Since the biggest bone of contention is with the 'browser', I will deal with this. The 'browser' (whether IE or NS) really consists of two components, the GUI (the part everyone sees) and underpinnings including the protocol stacks. The GUI is where you see web pages, type in your message to SI, etc. The underpinnings are HTML (its extensions and related languages) interpretation, network protocols and the like. Since there is only one way to interpret HTML and its related languages (all outlined in various RFCs) this should be the same no matter what 'browser' you are using. The only exception are "non-standard" extensions. If a general 'HTML stack' would just pass along any 'unknown' HTML tags, it would not matter what 'browser' you are using. If the 'browser' supported tags not supported by the 'stack', it would receive these tags and could handle them itself - just as it currently does. Also, the http protocol is standard. Therefore, the same functionality appears in all 'browsers'. The same is true for IRC (Internet Relay Chat), FTP, Telnet, etc. Looking at all this, MSFT would have been safe to write an API (Application Programming Interface) for all the underlying protocol, HTML, etc type of stuff. Then all 'browser' producers could interface through the API as well as add any other functionality they wish. IE would then not be 'required' by various applications as the functionality wanted (encryption, HTML interpretation, etc) would be included in the 'stack'. It is the forced inclusion of an 'application' ie IE that is the sticking point. Just my 2 cents, dmg (Go INTeL® Go to $200 - [post all splits: past, present & future])