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: Benny Baga who wrote (22525)	2/2/1999 1:18:00 PM
From: Benny Baga	Respond to of 24154

>>>>MICROSOFT ACCUSED OF FALSIFYING VIDEO Funny Thing, just went on MSNBC.Com, seems that they havn't picked up the story even though it's headlines on USA Today. How could this be? Benny

To: Benny Baga who wrote (22525)	2/2/1999 1:24:00 PM
From: AugustWest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I just heard about it on CNBC. Na' they wouldn't do that, would they?

To: Benny Baga who wrote (22525)	2/2/1999 1:46:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 24154

U.S. Uses Microsoft Evidence To Refute 'Integration' Claim By DAVID BANK and KEITH PERINE Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- The government turned Microsoft Corp.'s own evidence against it, challenging the software giant's assertion that its Windows operating system and Web browser are a single product. The issue is at the heart of the antitrust case, which charges Microsoft illegally "tied" Internet technology to Windows to prevent customers from choosing competing browsers. Microsoft defends the move as a technical innovation that benefited both customers and software developers. The government's lead lawyer, David Boies, dissected a video prepared by Microsoft for the court to demonstrate the benefits of "deep integration." The company sought to show that Windows 98, with its integrated browser, provides features not available using separate Web software. In the videotape, Microsoft employees showed how the built-in browser makes it easy to view Web pages from the Windows desktop and retrieve data from a computer's hard disk. But Mr. Boies cited 19 examples from the video in which the same features were available without such integration. He repeatedly asked James Allchin, a Microsoft senior vice president, whether users could obtain the same features by simply installing the separate retail version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer 4.0 browser on top of Windows 95, the company's older operating system. "Yes, that's correct," Mr. Allchin said, growing increasingly impatient. Mr. Allchin said Mr. Boies was "playing a word semantic game" because Internet Explorer is simply an update to Windows delivered separately from the original program. He said that adding Internet Explorer replaced major parts of the operating system itself. "How these technologies are distributed isn't a factor," a Microsoft spokesman said outside the courthouse. "It's how they are designed." Microsoft says other operating systems, including ones from Be Inc. and Caldera Corp., similarly include integrated Web browsers. Mr. Boies said the cross-examination undermined Microsoft's defense. "You don't need tying, you don't need to preclude customer choice, in order to get the benefits," he said on the courthouse steps. "You can get exactly the same end-user experience by combining two separate products if that's what the customer wants." A deposition from a Microsoft executive appeared to bolster the government's case. Ben Slivka, who helped develop Internet Explorer, testified that Microsoft considered the "Web applications platform" to be a threat to Windows. "Was integrating the browser into Windows a response to that platform threat?" the government asked in the deposition, introduced in court Monday. "Yes," Mr. Slivka replied. Microsoft is relying on a federal appeals court ruling in a related case last June that appears to give the company broad leeway in product design if technical efficiencies and "plausible" consumer benefit results. The government is expected to challenge the ruling.

To: Benny Baga who wrote (22525)	2/2/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 24154

In fairness, I have to say I have a feeling that the term "falsifying video" is probably a bit of journalistic license on the part of USA Today, and AFX News too, since they ran a story with similar accusations. However, I say that with the caveat that I was not there and have not seen the actual transcript of what went on. Here's a clip from a Dow Jones article that may be talking about the same thing: Dow Jones News Service Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Tuesday, February 2, 1999 Microsoft Mistakes -4: Co. Tries But Can't Explain Problem An embarrassed Microsoft returned to federal district court Tuesday afternoon claiming its videotape demonstration was not faulty, but unable to explain a significant remaining discrepancy. In morning testimony at the company's antitrust trial, Microsoft Senior Vice President James Allchin acknowledged that the videotape contained several mistakes and inconsistencies. He also had admitted that several supposedly untouched computers that he initially claimed had only Windows 98 installed on them had other programs, such as Microsoft's Office, and registries that had been tampered with. Registries are used to change the settings in a computer. The demonstration was intended to show the value of integrating Windows 98 and the Explorer browser. It also sought to illustrate how a Princeton University assistant professor's program designed to disable browsing in Windows 98 impeded the performance of the operating system. Microsoft said after conferring with its engineers, who set up and ran the machines at the company's Redmond, Wash., headquarters, that a machine in the demonstration had Assistant Professor Edward Felten's program on it. Allchin admitted earlier in the day the machine apparently did not have the program when it ran sluggishly on its way to the Windows Update Web site. However, the company was unable to explain why a software title bar running across to the top of the computer screen continued to indicate the Felten program hadn't been installed. This is "one small aspect of the screen shot" and it doesn't change the results of the test, said company General Counsel William Neukom, referring to videotape. "This is a tiny part of a very long tape." All it shows is that "things can happen with software," he said. Nevertheless, David Boies, the government's lead attorney, maintained that as evidence in the trial, the videotape was "unreliable. We don't really have an explanation." He said he didn't suspect foul play on Microsoft's part. The only mistake Allchin probably made was relying on other people, Boies said. ================================================ So, assuming your USA Today article is talking about the same thing, I would say that "falsifying evidence" is too strong and that "honest mistake" is a more accurate characterization of what Microsoft did. Deliberate falsification of evidence is a very serious charge. On the other hand, I take back everything I said yesterday about Boies' cross-examination of Allchin not being a disaster. How Microsoft could screw up perhaps the single most important presentation for them in this case is simply beyond me.