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 (22505)	1/29/1999 6:45:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Respond to of 24154

Linux Up Close: Time To Switch zdnet.com

To: Bearded One who wrote (22505)	1/29/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

It's the smoking gun memo! Every case has one: KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News Copyright (C) 1999 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World Reporter (TM) Friday, January 29, 1999 Microsoft E-Mail Called Key for Justice Department Case David L. Wilson WASHINGTON--The Justice Department has obtained internal Microsoft Corp. research the government says proves that the company's Web browser, Internet Explorer, can effectively be removed from its Windows operating system. If true, Microsoft's defense in its ongoing antitrust trial will suffer a devastating blow. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who will decide the case, ordered the release of the documents over the vigorous protests of Microsoft's lawyers who had for weeks fought a behind-the-scenes battle to keep them out of the public record. A Microsoft spokesmen said the documents are not significant. "Frankly we think it supports our case more than it supports their case," said Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray. "The government may try to use this to prove something that can't be proven." The government's lead prosecutor, David Boies, said outside the courtroom that the documents go the heart of the government's case, proving that Microsoft itself could tell the court how to safely remove Internet Explorer. "Something of course they've been saying can't be done," he said. At the heart of the government's antitrust case against the Redmond, Wash., software giant is the allegation that Microsoft --which has some version of its operating system in 90 percent of the desktop computers -- deliberately welded Internet Explorer into Windows to defend itself against a threat posed by rival Netscape Communications Corp.'s browser. Microsoft denies the allegation, arguing that integrating the browser into the operating system provides technological advantages, and that because they are seamlessly melded together they are actually a single entity. The new evidence, in the form of an e-mail and an accompanying spreadsheet, calls that position into question. The e-mail was written Oct. 21, 1998, by David D'Souza, a Microsoft engineer. In it he analyzes the testimony of government witness Ed Felten, a Princeton University professor. Felten built a program that he claimed could effectively remove the browser from Windows; Microsoft claims that Felten's program only 'hides' the obvious parts of Internet Explorer, leaving its guts behind. Felten acknowledged that his prototype was crude but argued that Microsoft engineers could do a better job, if they wanted to. The D'Souza e-mail discusses a spreadsheet he developed that shows which part of the Windows code is used only by the browser and could be safely removed. This appears to support Felten's view. Windows relies on a system of shared 'libraries' that typically contain many separate bundles of code, each of which is designed to do a specific task, such as make the letter 'H' appear on a computer screen when the 'H' key is struck on the keyboard. Without access to the specific code bundles it's designed to function with, an application won't work. D'Souza examined Felten's assertion that removing IE improved the efficiency of Windows -- essentially making the system smaller and less complicated -- to see if it was valid. In his e-mail he concluded, "Arguably, based on Felten's testimony, this list could be used to separate (the shared library) into two parts: Sharedplusshell and browser specific." Most telling, from the government's perspective, is the final line that follows: "So this may not be useful." The trial resumes Monday, when Microsoft senior vice president James Allchin is scheduled to testify. In written testimony released Wednesday, Allchin argued that Felten's attempts to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 98 failed. Internet Explorer, he testified, "is so central to the operations of Windows 98 that the operating system would fail to function if it were removed." Knight Ridder New Media, a division of the San Jose Mercury News' parent company, Knight Ridder, is a supporter of ProComp, a coalition of companies and organizations that believe Microsoft Corp.'s business practices are anti-competitive. Knight Ridder New Media considers itself a competitor with Microsoft because of the software company's efforts to provide news, entertainment and classified advertising content online. I think this memo will be important for two reasons: 1. It will show what a bunch of liars Microsoft is, when they say they cannot separate IE from Windows. That will hurt their credibility at the trial level, although the judge obviously will want to build as many of his factual findings as possible on their own admissions. 2. It will hurt them at the appellate level, since it will make their argument about judges being incompetent to order changes in software design look ridiculous. Judges do not have to design software. All they have to do is order Microsoft to do something its own documents clearly show it can do, albeit at some cost. Nope. If Microsoft is going to win this case, it needs to stay away from the facts. The facts are deadly.