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 (23366)	5/25/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 24154

Yeah that was it.

To: Bearded One who wrote (23366)	5/26/1999 10:18:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Computer Expert Defends Efforts To Separate Microsoft Programs A COMPUTER EXPERT defended his efforts to disentangle Microsoft's Web browser from its Windows operating system in a contentious deposition with the software giant's attorneys. An INTERACTIVE JOURNAL News Roundup A computer expert who will be one of the U.S. government's final witnesses in the antitrust trial of Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday defended his efforts to disentangle Microsoft's Web browser from its Windows operating system. Edward Felten, a computer-science professor at Princeton University, was questioned by Microsoft attorneys under oath in a deposition taken at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. In a contentious session, he played down what Microsoft described as problems created with Windows after his efforts. "If there's a bug, there's a bug," Dr. Felten said. "I'm sure it can be fixed." Dr. Felten called his work a "proof of concept," arguing that any imperfection pointed out by Microsoft "doesn't invalidate the concept." The dispute goes back to an early stage in the trial and touches on a key point in the government's case against Microsoft. In December, Dr. Felten testified for the government that he wrote a program to remove Internet software from Windows while leaving the operating system intact, something Microsoft contended couldn't be done. Government attorneys were seeking to show that Windows and Internet Explorer are separate products, bolstering their claim that the Redmond, Wash., software giant illegally "tied" the products in order to extend its dominance in operating-system software to Web software. Microsoft claims that the combination of Windows and Internet Explorer amounts to a single product, and therefore tying charges can't apply. The company also argues that Dr. Felten's program, in fact, only removed a tiny fraction of the Windows software code used by Internet Explorer. In February, Microsoft's James Allchin demonstrated that some Microsoft applications didn't work properly after the Felten program was run. The government wants Dr. Felten to take the stand again next month -- during the trial's rebuttal stage -- to counter Mr. Allchin's testimony. The trial resumes Monday after a 13-week break. Dr. Felten's deposition was the first of three scheduled this week. The others will take place in North Carolina and California. Mr. Allchin, a senior vice president and a top Microsoft scientist, had argued in court about the benefits of Microsoft's decision to include its Web-browser software within Windows. But Dr. Felten, who studied the closely guarded technical blueprints for Windows in a court-ordered examination, believes there is no justification for the way Microsoft bundled its browser in Windows. Dr. Felten argued with Microsoft lawyer Steve Holley repeatedly Wednesday over whether it's possible to identify the specific files within Windows that comprise the Web browser. Microsoft wants to show that, because some files perform dual functions, they can't be removed without crippling Windows. But Dr. Felten argues that it is sufficient to disable the browser without actually deleting those files. "The product is defined by the functions," Dr. Felten said. "So, a car is defined by moving down the street?" Mr. Holley asked. Minutes later, as Dr. Felten's response continued, Mr. Holley demanded, "Can you please answer the question I asked and not give a speech about something you want to say?" The battle over analogies echoed Dr. Felten's previous deposition with Microsoft, which was conducted in October without reporters in the room. That was also painfully arduous, as reflected by 238 pages of recently released transcripts. --Ted Bridis of the Associated Press contributed to this article.

To: Bearded One who wrote (23366)	5/28/1999 2:09:00 AM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Dan really went at it with some of the "republicans" on other threads. I'm no supporter of Clinton, but Dan seemed to have the best defense of Clinton mounted by any of the "liberals" on those threads. It appeared that initially his attention to detail must have stuck in the craw of some of his opponents.... it all degenerated from there. The saddest part in my opinion was that... all of the players on all sides appeared to be - at the outset - decent people, but the language of the posts and counter-posts became very vicious. ...a casualty of modern american politics? In any case the whole thing was a very tough read... I had to retreat in disgust from what became a cesspool of words... FWIW Andy