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 (22585)	2/5/1999 2:28:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

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. This may be a flaw in the law, but I'm begining to think that the question of bundling 'products' is not the real question. Let's have a theoretical exercise-- Suppose IE 4.0 never existed separately from Windows. Suppose, rather, that everyone just used Netscape on Windows 95 and then Windows 98 came out. Lo and behold, Windows 98 has a built in browser and set of APIs and DLLs. Furthermore, Windows 98 has an icon which can't be removed that starts up the browser. Could this be seen as a predatory, anticompetitive, or otherwise illegal act? Morally, I would think so. They don't need to make the icon unremovable. But what about legally?