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: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19838)	6/1/1998 9:09:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

There is also the matter of there breaking a contract that was not adjudicated to be illegal or not binding. I certianly wish I could pull that stunt. Ah, another definitive opinion from the legal branch of the Mind of Reg(TM). Who still can't be bothered to read what he has typoed. This being the same legal branch that held the DoJ, the top cops in the land, had investigated Microsoft and found them "not a monopoly". In a precedent setting opinion, of course. Somehow, it looks like the same stunt is being pulled again, though I'm sure the elusive context issue is available as a defense. Cheers, Dan.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19838)	6/1/1998 4:56:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Respond to of 24154

Reggie, >>but the DOJ's actions go considerably farther than that. Forced bundling of a competitor's product, force dismantling of MSFT's product to the point where it would not boot NEC apparently did get Win95 to boot without Internet Explorer even though Microsoft said it was "impossible" for their own people. Apparently those shifty foreigners are in on your conspiracy now. >>In the medium term this should serve to benefit MSFT, for they can point to the fact that other vendors can ship NAV without impunity (at least from MSFT), if the subject ever comes up in court. Or maybe the DOJ is doing its job by scrutinizing Microsoft's business practices closely thus allowing OEM's to make their own choices once again without fear of economic reprisals from Microsoft's tying agreements. Old Joachim must be foaming at the end of his leash at this point. Cheers, Norm

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19838)	6/2/1998 10:41:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

This is happening because of the DOJ intervention and shows clearly that the Justice strategy of focusing light on the OEM contracts is appropriate.> No, I don't so. I do think it is good that the OEM's can ship thier browser of choice, but the DOJ's actions go considerably farther than that. Forced bundling of a competitor's product, forced dismantling of MSFT's product to the point where it would not boot, the government micromanaging of the software design.... These things are ridiculous Once again, you change the subject. Dermot's point is still just as relevant whether you think the DOJ's actions go too far or not. Don't you think that the timing of Gateway 2000, NEC, and IBM's moves to load Netscape's browser has at least something to do with DOJ pressure? And isn't this going to result in better choices for consumers?