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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (25738)	5/7/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

MSFT probably shot itself in the foot when they threatened to take away CPQ's licence for W95 Jon - Please don't perpetuate this myth. The situation you are referring to was due to the fact that a Compaq executive (terminated shortly thereafter) had made plans to produce 1 small line of products using a procedure that violated the terms of CPQ's agreements with MSFT. CPQ at the time and even today produces products which have Netscape installed, with no comment from MSFT about the choice of browser. This was a memo taken out of context to support the DOJ contentions. As opposed to Dell's sad performance in front of the Senate, a random purchase by the same senate committee of 4 CPQ consumer products produced 2 which had netscape already installed. It was a no-charge option on the other 2. Notice that the CPQ part of the committee's background research did not get much coverage at the hearings.

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (25738)	5/7/1998 3:09:00 PM
From: Chris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Jon, RE: MSFT vs DOJ The DOJ would have no case against MSFT if MSFT marketed the browser as a separate product. As I recall this is what got MSFT in trouble with Win95. The DOJ bashed MS claims that IE was not a separate by holding up a box containing IE and then a box containing Win95. MS wants IE as part of the OS from one reason. They want their OS to be the viewport to the internet. Just as NSCP wants their browser to be the same. Just like Seagate software wants their backup software to be what everyone uses. Just like Oracle wants their database in your enterprise, or Sun wants Java in your toaster, cell phone, car, etc. etc. etc. This is a business decision that the DOJ is making a political issue. It becomes an issue of innovation that impacts every large corporation in the US. Ma bell was granted a monopoly by the government, and they took it away once the market was developed. MS built their market by free competition, and we the consumer voted with our cash. Now the government wants to step in and change the rules. This is pure bull shit!!! (pardon my language) Yes, I own a small piece of MS, but my concern is as a business man and citizen. chris