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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22584)	2/5/1999 12:05:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

My mind is a bit slow, and I realized that I did not answer your question, so let me try to answer it now. As I understand you, you are saying that, if you remove the user interfaces to the IE DLLs and APIs, you have removed IE, while leaving the underlying APIs and DLLs available to developers. If IE only needs DLLs and APIs that are also needed by Windows, you are correct, and, as is true for the 19 features discussed by Allchin, the integrated whole of Win 98 will not be greater than the sum of the parts, IE 4 and Win 95. Since all the APIs and DLLs will still be in Windows even if IE is removed, developers will still have a unified set of APIs and DLLs with which to work even if IE is removed. However, if even one DLL or API is needed to run IE but not needed for Windows, then I would argue that just suppressing the IE user functionality without removing that DLL or API cripples IE, but it does not separate the two products, because a part of IE that is not logically a part of Windows is still present in Windows. Of course, this depends on your definition of the IE "product," just as it did under the Consent Decree. If the IE product means the whole product, so that removing even a single line of code makes what is left not a "product," then, again, you are correct because making the product incomplete is the same as removing it, under your definition. However, I would say that, at least when it comes to the code needed to run IE but not Windows, Microsoft has the right to define that as part of the IE "product." Furthermore, I believe that Farber's theoretical discussion of an application as including the DLLs and APIs needed to run it supports this definition, assuming, as always, that I understand him correctly. Under this definition, its all or nothing. To separate IE from Windows, you have to remove all of the code needed to run IE but not needed for Windows from the Windows OS. Anything less is simply crippling IE, which is not the same thing as removing it. Furthermore, if Microsoft has the right to include part of IE in Windows, it has the right to include the whole thing. If Microsoft has the right to design its own products, it has the right to include with the APIs and DLLs needed to run IE all of the user interfaces. The government cannot force Microsoft to split IE into parts and offer parts of it in Windows. Let me know if this answers your question.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22584)	2/5/1999 12:14:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

I think you got all the vocabulary right, and your point makes sense. Now, you will say, "Why not just include the IE APIs or DLLs in the OS, so all Windows users will have them even if they cannot use IE? My response is this: If the APIs in IE are not needed to operate Windows, then they bear no logical relation to Windows and should not be a part of the Windows OS. They are a part of IE and should be included with the IE software. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought one of the points of Farber's testimony was that a given OS or application should contain only those DLLs and APIs needed to actually run that piece of software. It does not matter where you physically put the DLLs; if Windows does not use or need them, they are not part of Windows. He may have said that, but I don't think it's that important.In my opinion, Microsoft should be able to include whatever dll's and apis they want. Let's go further and allow Microsoft to bundle anything they want with Windows as long as it has no anticompetitive effect or meets the test of the appeals court. Going by that standard, which I think is reasonable, then Microsoft can bundle mshtml.dll with Windows because it provides a benefit to developers, and there was nobody with competing versions of mshtml.dll, anyway. Ultimately, Microsoft could have easily included mshtml.dll with Windows without diminishing the functionality of Netscape Navigator. The IE 4.0 icon, however, is a different story. That competes with the Netscape icon. Including the IE icon on the desktop, preventing the OEM's from removing it, and forcing Netscape's icon off the desktop is the crux of this aspect of the case in my view. I think we're moving from discussion of unneeded integration of IE 4.0 and Windows to a discussion of unneeded integration of pieces of IE 4.0 with each other. The icon in IE 4.0 has nothing to do with what mshtml.dll offers developers. Does that make legal sense?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22584)	2/5/1999 2:27:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Respond to of 24154

It does not matter where you physically put the DLLs; if Windows does not use or need them, they are not part of Windows. Let me throw a little thought. What is Windows? Who defines what is Windows? Is Windows a static product or is it a moving target? Is Windows just a pure OS (in the traditional definition) or is it an OS product? If you can't answer those questions clearly, then arguing about "Windows does not use or need them" make no sense. Win3.1 did not use some dlls that Win95 did use, Win98 may use some dlls that Win95 didn't use. They all called Windows, so when you arguing what Windows which did you refer to? Basically, a fundamental question is can Windows APIs (dlls) be grown, extended? I think the answer is YES! Then the next question is who will have the right to decide what APIs can be added to future Windows products? Court? Congress? Government? Some technical committee or Microsoft?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22584)	2/5/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

As Devlin explained, having access to those IE APIs saves him money, savings he can pass on to purchasers of his products. Those are a plausible technical benefit of the Win 98 integrated product which is not available if users are allowed to combine IE4 and Win 95 on their own. Giving users the choice not to include the IE APIs in their OS/browser combo defeats these savings for Devlin and his customers, for the reasons I outlined. Using this line of reasoning, MSFT would be able to bundle any application with their OS, even a ham sandwich. If the APIs in IE are not needed to operate Windows, then they bear no logical relation to Windows and should not be a part of the Windows OS. Not necessarily. There are essential applications that need to be included in an OS in order for it to be usable. For example, the Notepad application is one needed to view and do basic editing of files. Once you establish this proposition, it follows that, for developers to be able to rely on the fact that all users will have the full set of APIs on their machines, you must tie IE to Windows at the design level. No you don't. You can sell these as separate applications and toolkits with published APIs, encourage developers to use them, and provide the ability for developers to include the linked libraries with their application distributions by way of runtime licensing. This is how everyone else has to do it. MSFT should not have any advantage in this area, and should have to compete on equal footing.