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 (18693)	4/22/1998 1:54:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

From what I recall, Bork's a libertarian who doesn't believe in civil liberties, only property rights, and his recent book was somewhere around the bend. I went to check out what "his recent book" was, and I assume you are talking about "Slouching Towards Gomorrah : Modern Liberalism and American Decline," the reviews to which are available on Amazon.com amazon.com I haven't read this puppy, but judging from the reviews, Bork is no libertarian. It's sort of an interesting juxtiposition on social issues: what is reported to be Chairman Bill's trendy liberalism vs. Bork's social conservatism.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18693)	4/22/1998 9:41:00 AM
From: Dermot Burke	Respond to of 24154

More on the subject,with the enticing microsoft's 'vietnam' :http://www.salon1999.com/21st/

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18693)	4/22/1998 10:12:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Microsoft Browser Case Has Day in Court nytimes.com This is today's NYT coverage, it's a little more balanced than yesterday's story. Notable for a concise statement of the famous "ham sandwich defense", not to be confused with "compliance with a raised middle finger. But first, this: But even if this suit does lose its relevance, a Justice Department official noted, the Government also has under way an antitrust investigation involving Windows 98. That operating system uses Internet Explorer for some of its core functions, including browsing the computer's own files on its disk drives. Sherman! Sherman! Sherman! I will repeat another standard criticisms of "browser/OS integration". If Microsoft wanted to integrate Windows with the Web, it should have been done on the server side. That'd give you a measure of remote access to your machine, as well as better modularization. But unlike the "air supply" thing that wasn't in the business plan. William Neukom, a Microsoft senior vice president, said he thought the outcome of this appeal was important to Microsoft regardless of the status of Windows 95 because of the precedent it might set. "We're going to continue to integrate products," he said in an interview. "This appeal is critically important in the sense that the court defines the meaning of integrated products and provides Microsoft with the clarity it needs to go forward with its business." I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, if the procedural matters prove to be the deciding factor. Except for Reggie, who will hail it as a binding precedent proving Microsoft innocent of all wrongdoing and immune from further antitrust action. Anyway, time for that ham sandwich. "What's Microsoft's definition of an integrated product?" Judge Wald asked. "I'd like to hear that from your own lips." Urowsky's answer was unambiguous. Anything could be integrated into the operating system, he said -- any program that the company thought consumers might like to use with Windows. "Then, what's a nonintegrated product?" Judge A. Raymond Randolph asked. Urowsky responded that Microsoft sells dozens of stand-alone programs, including Word, the word processor. And IE in various flavors, but never mind that. Another one of those hobgoblin of small minds things. IE is probably bundled in standalone Word too. Is integration transitive? Judge Randolph then asked what would prevent Microsoft from including Word as a part of the operating system. "Nothing," Urowsky answered, "except that it's not a very inviting business strategy." Once again, the long arm of the law vs. standard Microsoft business practice. But, don't hold your breath for a clear winner here, procedural matters may make the larger issues moot. Cheers, Dan.