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: Bearded One who wrote (21835)	11/30/1998 10:27:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I think we're going to run into a wall soon, where we simply have different views of the same thing. Whether you're dodging the point, or I'm missing it, the bottom line is the same. The only person whose opinion will count is the judge's. If he says there is foreclosure, then there is foreclosure, and there is not a lot anyone can do about it. what's relevant is that Netscape doesn't do as well coming out of a box or downloaded as it does with the OEMs. But if OEMs were to stick a disk with Netscape software on it in every box, would DOJ (could DOJ credibly) be pursuing this action? I don't think so. Microsoft also integrated IE 4.0. That provides additional difficulties in using Netscape, and in installing it. I agree that, on Windows 95, it's the Hotel California of applications -- you can delete it any time you like, but it will never leave. On Windows '98, I can't comment, since I don't use Windows '98. That's too bad, because if IE could easily be deleted, it seems to me that all Microsoft would have to say to those who claim it should be required to offer a version without IE is, "Let the user or on-site administrator delete it." The real issue is whether, in offering two versions, Microsoft should be required to charge more for the version with IE. If you don't require them to charge more, I don't see how requiring them to offer a choice will help Netscape. And, requiring Microsoft to charge more, opens a whole hornet's nest of problems. The fundamental point is that Microsoft has made it very difficult for the novice to obtain or use Netscape Navigator. My fundamental point is that anyone who wants Netscape can get it, and even novices can install it. Believe me, I know this from first hand experience. ;) By definition, there's at most one monopolist in a market. I give up on the machine gun analogy. ;)

To: Bearded One who wrote (21835)	11/30/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

Monday, November 30, 1998 DOJ Expert Admits Consumers Want Integration FORM TYPE: LEGAL ISSUER: FEDERAL FILINGS BUSINESS NEWS SYMBOL: X.FFI WASHINGTON (FFBN) -- The antitrust trial against Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) eased back into action this morning after a four-day Thanksgiving break with the continuing testimony of government expect Frederick Warren-Boulton. Microsoft attorney Michael Lacovara asked Warren-Boulton on cross examination about focus groups conducted by Microsoft that indicated computer users wanted Web browsing capabilities integrated with Windows 98. Warren-Boulton agreed that consumers place a high value on integrated capabilities and noted that they particularly value close integration between their browsers and operating systems. This seems to support a long-standing Microsoft contention that it integrated its browser into its Windows operating system to benefit consumers, not to hurt its browser rival, Netscape Communications Corp. (NSCP). Lacovara next moved to the question of what original equipment manufacturers are permitted to place on their computers under Microsoft's OPK (OEM preinstallation kit). The OPK sets out conditions for Windows 98 installation. Since the introduction of Windows 98, OEMs have been permitted to put Netscape's Web browser in the start menu, according to Lacovara. Warren-Boulton noted that in June, Microsoft significantly relaxed some of its restrictions. Lacovara presented two screen shots that purported to demonstrate placement by OEMs of Netscape's browser in the start menu. The Justice Department unsuccessfully objected to introduction of the first exhibit and asked the court for additional time to review the second one. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson will take up the question of whether to admit the second exhibit when court reconvenes this morning. Patti Dennis, Esq. Legal Editor ==================== I think the bolded point is an important concession. Of course, DOJ will argue that the real issue is choice, so that those who want integration can have it and those who don't, won't. I imagine the response will be something along the lines of, "It costs too much and is too inefficient to offer and support different versions of the same software."