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: Bob Crist who wrote (19636)	5/21/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Bob, in a momentarily serious vein, I would direct you to the article in today's NYT, nytimes.com , which I excerpted in 19619. This article addresses the issues of remedies at some length. The particular proposal of distributing Netscape's browser shouldn't be taken as the final word any more than Bill's "We must be free to imitate". The issues are serious, and my small mind always has this problem when people who'll go on about how laughable Microsoft's competition is and what a good and great thing their monopoly is in other contexts suddenly go off in any number of directions when antitrust comes up. At any rate, remedies are all hypothetical at this point. The problem of the Microsoft "monopolistic death grip" on the OEM distribution channel could have other solutions, but Microsoft and friends sure aren't going to discuss the issue if they don't have to. They'd prefer to believe Michael Dell, a totally disinterested observer. Cheers, Dan.

To: Bob Crist who wrote (19636)	5/21/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Bob, >>You'r mistaking me for a Microphile. I was being general in my use of Microphile so do not take it personally. >>I just think that the remedy the feds are seeking in this lawsuit is not appropriate (forcing MSFT to include the Netscape browser with W98) Yeah, I am not sure what to make of that inclusion concept either. Then again maybe its simply what the DOJ calls "aggressive negotiating". I do however, think that Microsoft should have no say in what is intalled/configured after the OEM takes possession of Windows. Windows is an "add-on" to the systems that the OEM sells and any configuration that the OEM makes after installing Windows should be considered an act on behalf of their customers. To use the car analogy; FORD MOTORS buys an engine from Motorworks as is, tunes some for California, some for Mexico, some for Canada, etc. All different configurations of the original OEM engine purchased. Motorworks' involvement ends with the purchase orders as should any OEM supplier. Cheers, Norm