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 : Microsoft - The Evil empire -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kal who wrote (1254)	6/12/1998 9:58:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1600

Bill Gates doesn't get it either. Kal understands. Thank you Kal. Bill Gates can't be as ignorant as he appears. He has to be practicing spin control. DISCLAIMER: I also believe OJ is guilty and Monica "loaned" Bill a hummer. The Department of Justice case is about alleged ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS!!! The DOJ case is NOT about monopolies. It is NOT about the right to improve your products as Bill Gates would have you believe. It is NOT about mergers as the Red Herring would have you believe. It has nothing to do with cable companies. It has nothing to do with Office Depot and Staples. These are smoke screens. Don't buy this bullsh_t. I'm tired of analogies. "Klein stated that the preliminary relief being sought 'will not require Microsoft to redesign Windows 98. Our main focus in the motion for preliminary injunction is not the code--it's the contracts.'" For the last time ... some excerpts (numbers added by me): The DOJ charged that Microsoft engaged in a pattern of anticompetitive acts, including the following: 1. In May 1995, Microsoft executives attempted to persuade an internet browser software competitor--Netscape Communications Corporation--not to compete with Microsoft and to divide the browser market, with Microsoft becoming the sole supplier of browsers for use with Windows 95 operating systems and with Netscape becoming the sole supplier of browsers for non-Windows 95 operating systems. Netscape refused to participate. 2 Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers to agree to license and install its browser, Internet Explorer, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system. 3. Microsoft now intends to tie unlawfully its IE Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating system, the successor to Windows 95. 4. Microsoft continues to misuse its Windows operating system monopoly by requiring personal computer manufacturers to agree, as a condition of acquiring a license to the Windows operating system, to adopt a uniform "boot-up" or "first screen" sequence specified by Microsoft. This sequence determines the screens that every user sees upon turning on a Windows PC. 5. Microsoft's exclusionary restrictions forbid, among other things, any changes by an OEM that would remove from the PC Microsoft's Internet Explorer software or that would add to the PC a competing browser in any more prominent or visible way than the way Microsoft requires Internet Explorer to be presented. 6. Microsoft has entered into anticompetitive agreements with virtually all of the nation's largest and most popular On-Line Service Providers and Internet Service Providers, firms which provide the communications link between a subscriber's PC and the Internet. These agreements leverage its operating system monopoly by conditioning these Providers' inclusion in Windows' lists on their agreement to offer Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser primarily or exclusively through all of the channels through which they distribute their services; not to promote or even mention to any of their subscribers the existence of a competing Internet browser; and to use on their own Internet sites Microsoft proprietary standards and tools that make those sites more effective when viewed through Internet Explorer than when viewed through competing Internet browsers. These agreements have foreclosed competing browsers from this major channel of browser distribution. More than 30 percent of Internet browser users have obtained their browsers from their service providers. 7. Microsoft has entered into anticompetitive agreements with Internet Content Providers (ICPs). Prominent "channel buttons" advertising and providing direct Internet access to select ICPs appear on the "Active Desktop" feature shipped with the Windows operating system. These agreements condition an ICP's placement on one of these buttons on the ICP's agreement not to pay or otherwise compensate a Microsoft Internet browser competitor for similar placement on that browser; not to advertise or even publicly mention its placement on a competing browser; not to promote a competing browser in any other way; not to allow a competing browser to highlight and promote the ICP's Internet content; and to design its Web sites using Microsoft-specific, proprietary programming extensions so that those sites are more effective when viewed with Internet Explorer than when viewed through a competing browser. 8. Although Microsoft has sought to modify some of the anticompetitive agreements with ISPs, OSPs and ICPs, the modifications Microsoft has imposed (which condition participation in Windows on the Providers agreeing to give parity to Microsoft's browser) are themselves unlawful. 9. The complaint also charges that Microsoft recognized that the success of Netscape's internet browser threatened Microsoft's Windows monopoly on PC operating systems. Netscape's browser presented such a threat because it was designed to run on several different operating systems and afforded software developers the opportunity to develop programs to run directly on the Netscape browser. This would leave computer manufacturers and users with a choice about which operating system to run on their PCs, leading to more competition and lower prices for operating systems. This threat was described by Microsoft CEO Bill Gates in a 1995 warning to Microsoft executives: "A new competitor "born" on the Internet is Netscape. Their browser is dominant, with a 70% usage share, allowing them to determine which network extensions will catch on. They are pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the key API [applications programming interface] into the client to commoditize the underlying operating system." 10. Microsoft set out to eliminate this competitive threat and to win at any cost what Microsoft described as "the browser war" between Internet Explorer and Netscape's Navigator browser, the Department said. Reno added, "The Internet is an immensely popular medium for communication, commerce, and the information flow of the 21st century. No firm should be permitted to use its monopoly power to develop a chokehold on the browser software needed to access the Internet." The Department is seeking preliminary relief to eliminate provisions in Microsoft's licensing and marketing contracts that restrict the ability of computer manufacturers to choose which browser to install on their machines. It also seeks to eliminate provisions that limit the ability of Internet service, online service and internet content providers to distribute and promote competing browser software. Klein stated that the preliminary relief being sought "will not require Microsoft to redesign Windows 98. Our main focus in the motion for preliminary injunction is not the code--it's the contracts." It's the contracts STUPID! (Not you Kal...people that can't read) I feel better. Thanks. Best of luck to all.