On  3 Nov 97 at 9:39, Joseph Uhrig wrote:

> I really wonder if anyone at DOJ has a clue as to what IE4 is,
> what it has under the hood, and how integrated  it it to
> Win95 and upcoming releases... (I'm not under NDA for this
> release and can say that it is TRULY INTEGRATED).  Install it
> and suddenly find that every Explorer Window is "Internet
> Explorer"... that sounds like integration to me.  The DOJ
> complaint is so full of holes, they don't have a prayer - and
> I wish they would stop spending our tax dollars persuing it..

The issue is NOT whether IE Explorer, or MS-Office for that
matter, is TRULY integrated with Win95/NT.  Rather the
question is did MS breach its consent degree that it signed in
1995.    If MS IE is truly integrated with Win98 (and it
is) then they certainly have breached the terms of that
agreement, and their motives for doing so are not worth squat.

If MS is permitted to reclassify any arbitrarily selected piece
of software from being an "application" into being part of their
FOS then they have total control over the PC software market.  A
stand alone application has no realistic chance of competing
with software that is "bundled" with an OS and therefore
invisibly paid for by every user of the OS.  This would have the
consequence that MS could cherry pick new successful
applications.  They could kill off a potential rival through the
simple expedient of giving a similar application away along with
the OS until the competition died from starvation.

This was the heart of the issue that lead to the consent degree
in the first place.  That MS, by virtue of its effective
monopoly position in providing the OS for Intel x86 based
computers was engaging in marketing practices which were
ultimately harmful to the industry and to consumers.  That in
recognition of its unique position it must segregate OS and
application development and sales.  That MS application
designers must derived no competitive advantage by virtue of
working for the firm that builds the OS that their application
runs on.

Consider  for a moment the number of alternative database
systems that were available for the HP3000 community until
the advent of MPE/iX. You had, Image, Image and of course,
Image.  Who else could get a look in?  Now while many in the
HP3000 user community gained a great deal by this arrangement
they also had to put up with HP's off again, on again, support
and enhancement of this product.  They had no alternative
besides switching hardware and OS.  Compare that to the
number of database systems available for IBM and Unix
systems. At least there HP3000 users had a number of
alternatives to HP as far as hardware and OS was considered.
With the current WIn-Intel domination of the desk top market
there is no realistic alternative.

Now consider, is there any fundamental difference between IE
4 and WinWord-97?  If a browser application can migrate into the
FOS why can't a text editor?  How about programming tools?  What
will be the future of Boland and other companies if MS at some
point decides that VB, VC, and VJ all belong in the FOS of
Win95/NT? Where do you draw the line? Who gets to draw it?  Bill
Gates?

What are you going to do as a consumer when MS decides that the
price for the next generation upgrade of Win95 is now $500.00 or
$1000.00 a copy because of all the goodies that are now part of
the FOS?  Who do you turn to?  What are your alternatives?

The US DOJ may be fumbling with this problem but at least they
are trying to deal with it.  It is NOT simply a case of beating
up on MS because they are successful.  Standard OIL showed the
US government what happens to the heath of an industry and a
nation when one person can unilaterally make self interested
decisions that affect millions of people.  Especially when  the
down side of those effects are not immediately apparent.
Particularly when those effects are nearly irreversible.

Any unrestrained activity which acts so as to destroy the
economic viability of potential competition is dangerous to society
as a whole.  This has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout
history.  Even restrained or regulated activity of this nature
has had serious costs borne by society. Consider the nature of
telephone service now, and telephone service from inception up
until the mid-seventies as an example.  The people that ponied
up to support that monopoly were the general public,  the
beneficiaries were the share holders.

Sometimes, what seems like a good deal for the public NOW,
doesn't look so hot five or ten years later.  The duty of
the State is to consider that possibility when dealing with
current activities of individuals and companies.  It is not a
perfect system, and since it contains human beings it never will
be, but it is the best that we have.

Microsoft agreed to do something, then changed their minds and
did something else.  They are now being held accountable for
that decision.  The puff and smoke coming out of Redmond
doesn't change that fact one bit.  Ask yourself this question.
If OS/2 had the market penetration of Win95 and MS was trying to
SELL IE-4, what would Bill Gates position be if IBM tried to
pull this stunt?

For what it is worth, the CNET survey on the question: "Did
Microsoft breach the consent degree?"  is running 2 to 1 in
favour of the DOJ's position.

Regards,
Jim


---
James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
mailto:[log in to unmask]  Canada L8E 3C3