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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21262)	11/6/1998 5:05:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Judge in Microsoft Case Tries to Cut Through Jargon nytimes.com The old Gray Lady remains my favorite source of coverage on the matter. Today's piece shows the Judge taking up an old question. He ain't no dummy, I'd say. Microsoft argues that Internet Explorer is a fully integrated and inseparable part of the operating system, not simply a "bundled" product that can be removed. To take the browser out of Windows, Microsoft says, would "break" Windows. Apple makes Mac OS, the only major operating system for personal computers that competes with Windows, and for a while Apple included its own Web browser, Cyberdog, with Mac OS. Edelman was trying to demonstrate that Apple, like Microsoft, saw advantages in combining the browser and operating system, when the judge interrupted and asked, "From a technological perspective, what are the technical advantages of integrating a browser, as opposed to bundling it?" Dr. Tevanian said Apple had made a study of this question, had tried integration instead of bundling but had found that it resulted in "confusion, extra overhead, and there were were easier ways to do it." The judge asked, "You don't think there is a benefit in any way, and there may even be a detriment?" Dr. Tevanian responded: "That's right. We have found that we are able to achieve what customers want by bundling browsers." As Judge Jackson continued his questioning, Dr. Tevanian testified that Apple could remove the browser from Mac OS without harming the operating system. The questions and answers cut to the heart of Microsoft's key defense. Dr. Tevanian is a Government witness, so it was not surprising that he gave answers that supported the Government's case. But he is also a top executive of the only company other than Microsoft that makes a commercially viable operating system and thus the only other company with experience in combining operating systems and browsers. Edelman stood by silently as Judge Jackson's questioning capped a day marked by increasing friction between the lawyer and the court. Several times during the day Judge Jackson criticized Edelman for asking "misleading" questions and "mischaracterizing" what Dr. Tevanian was saying on the stand. Once, when Edelman tried to question Dr. Tevanian about a complex technical document that the witness had never seen, a Government lawyer objected, and Judge Jackson told Edelman, "I think you'd better go on to something else." . . . With all three of the Government witnesses who have testified so far, Microsoft has introduced evidence intended to suggest that the three companies they represented -- the Netscape Communications Corporation, America Online and Apple -- all employed complaints to the Justice Department's antitrust division as a competitive tactic against Microsoft. To that assertion, Dr. Tevanian testified: "When someone is threatening to use monopoly power against you, it is a perfectly reasonable recourse to go to the Department of Justice. Our goal was to get Microsoft to play fair." The conflict between the two companies over multimedia software continued even after they had reached an agreement in 1997 that included settlement of a patent dispute, a $150 million investment in Apple by Microsoft and Apple's adoption of Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the preferred browser on Macintosh computers. The subject was still a sore point on Feb. 3, when Steven P. Jobs, Apple's acting chief executive, e-mailed William H. Gates, Microsoft's chairman. Even with the improving relationship between the two companies, Jobs said "there is one thing that threatens to be quite divisive" -- the behavior of Microsoft's multimedia executives. "They are really going out of their way," Jobs wrote, "to say that they intend to kill Quicktime, and they are being quite threatening and rude about it." Jobs added that he hoped Apple's "honest and proper effort" to make Quicktime competitive did not meet with "down and dirty tactics" from Microsoft. I'll forego my usual commentary on this one and recycle an old formulation. Standard Microsoft business practice versus the long arm of the law- which will come out on top? Cheers, Dan.