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: Harvey Allen who wrote (19270)	5/18/1998 1:43:00 PM
From: Dermot Burke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Thanks Harvey.That report amzes me in the details.They did not miss much, did they. Particularly amusing is the revelations concerning the dealings with AOL.I always thought that was a serious blow to Netscape.Now we know:So important were the exclusive deals, prosecutors allege, that Microsoft was willing to give America Online, the nation's largest Internet service provider, a preferred spot on the desktop at the expense of Microsoft's own online service, Microsoft Network, or MSN. The suit quotes Gates as saying the AOL deal was like "putting a bullet through MSN's head." The suit concludes: "The browser war was so critical to Microsoft that it was prepared to retreat in other markets in order to win in it." Another funny one was they caught them rigging the wizard/set-ups in circa 1997 new pc's , which my wife experienced with a laptop. This had me thinking conspiracy theory.Way too funny :The suit alleges that is exactly what Microsoft did - put its Internet Installation Wizard ahead in the boot-up sequence specifically to make sure that new computer-users start out using the Internet Explorer Web browser. And the Internet service providers on the wizard screens are those that have cut exclusive deals with Microsoft, the suit alleges.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (19270)	5/18/1998 2:36:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

They have a witness? From the Seattle Times article: But the government alleges that it has a witness: "As one participating Microsoft executive has subsequently admitted, Microsoft 'absolutely hoped to persuade Netscape not to compete with Microsoft,' " the suit alleges. As one Microsoft shill used to say on a forum dedicated to OS/2: This does not bode well.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (19270)	5/18/1998 3:36:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

U.S., 20 States Sue Microsoft nytimes.com The AP wire story, shorter than the Seattle times. First, for your amusement: --In May 1995, Microsoft proposed to Netscape that Netscape's browser, now used by 60 percent of computer owners, become the sole browser for those with non-Windows operating systems while Microsoft would supply the sole browser for computers operated by Windows. Windows, however, is the operating system on 90 percent of the nation's personal computers, and Netscape rejected the non-competition proposal. Sounds like an eminently refusable offer. Bill probably threw in the usual offer of $100k for Netscape's code, even though the brilliant minds at Microsoft could "do that in a week", no doubt. Too bad Spyglass couldn't refuse the offer, too. More relevant to the current discussion here, at least wrt. the FOB's I unfortunately dragged in from the "Bill Gates is John Galt" thread, there is a real reason for "Browser/OS" integration, but it's got nothing to do with "innovation" or "The OS is where the browser belongs" or "The browser is used for information retrieval, just like the OS". Standard Microsoft business practice, that's all. The federal lawsuit contained excerpts from Microsoft's internal documents that the complaint said showed the company feared its would lose the browser war in a competition on merits and had to take advantage of its monopoly. Two examples: On Feb. 24, 1997, Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer wrote: ''It seems clear that it will be very hard to increase market share on the merits of IE 4 (Internet Explorer) alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS (operating system) asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator.'' Microsoft Senior Vice President James Allchin wrote on Dec. 2, 1996 that unless the company were to ''leverage Windows ... I don't understand how IE is going to win .... Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows ... loses our biggest advantage -- Windows market share.'' Sherman Act? What Sherman Act? I don't see no Sherman Act. Rick told me it was out of commission. To bad Rick's little enforcement moratorium resulted in no legal precedents being set, unless you're into the Regimodel 2000 legal theory. Naive high school civics guy just can't vibe with that. Cheers, Dan.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (19270)	5/18/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Harvey, >>Gates also warned that Internet browsers posed a serious potential threat to Microsoft's Windows operating-system dominance by turning it into essentially the computer's plumbing and permitting the browser-maker to choose which software products would get prominence. An OS restricted to just being the computer's plumbing. What's your point Bill? The browser-maker choosing which software products get prominence! Bill calling the kettle black again. Just what exactly is Win98/IE going to save us from? Like Hitler saving Europe from Stalin I would guess. Which icons appear on the Startup screen? That's right, whatever channel partners Microsoft lets in. Talk about a self-incriminating argument. Maybe he's so used to playing both sides of the field he got confused for a moment. Cheers, Norm

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (19270)	5/19/1998 10:36:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

A little snippet of note from the Seattle Times article, seattletimes.com In August 1996, the suit alleges, Microsoft began imposing terms to restrict computer-makers' ability to alter what appears on the screen when Windows is installed and the computer is first switched on. Funny how the integrity and uniformity of the Windows 95 experience wasn't such a big deal till IE3 hit the streets, eh? The Brilliant Minds at Microsoft didn't realize the value of their sacred intellectual property until the "air supply" thing was weighing heavily on their minds. Or maybe it was just a coincidence. Cheers, Dan.