X-no-Archive:yes
Glenn's last statement is misleading.  Yes, the deal is about the DOJ and
Microsoft agreeing to the fact that taking the "The Internet" icon off the
desktop and the taskbar is now sufficient. Originally however, the DOJ
wanted ALL IE components removed and this was echoed by the judge.  What
has been done now, is that MS does not have to remove IE, simply make it
inaccessible.  It is just cosmetic.

This is much easier as MS does not have to create a new release of Windows
95 B (AKA OSR2) removing the IE components and having to test everything
again.  That is what was ordered originally and why MS responded the way it
did.

I think this deal is fine, and further underlines the DOJ's technical
inability to deal with the issue.  If they had been smarter, this is what
they would have requested at the onset, and this entire charade would not
have come about.

The judge inadvertently showed how stupid the DOJ request was when he
stated (incorrectly) that he had removed IE in 90 seconds.  All he did was
remove the icon and purge one file.  A far cry from removing the product,
something he had, just days before, ordered MS to do.  Words mean things.
 There is a difference between removing and disabling.

I do not believe there is going to be a great impetus for OEMs to sell
machines WITHOUT IE.  I do not believe the users will want less than the
full Windows 95 OSR2.  I can just hear the screams if a user inadvertently
receives a machine w/o IE. That user will blame the OEM (HP, IBM, Compaq,
etc...), and Microsoft and Bill Gates, not the DOJ.

How the DOJ can say this is a victory for the consumer is beyond me, but I
must remember this comes from an administration which (to put it kindly) is
detached from reality and not held to, or concerned with, the truth.

Not to let MS off the hook either, and not knowing who proposed this
current deal.  I do think MS was and still is playing games, but they do
have a point.  The government should not be involved in the design of
operating systems or products.  The government is incompetent in this area,
and most importantly, it's not their business.

Now that Netscape is giving its browser away for free, I wonder what the
reasoning is behind the DOJ's jihad against MS.  I know they want MS to pay
protection money, sorry, I meant campaign contributions, to Washington, but
what is the basis of the suit now.

"Microsoft can't include a free product with Windows 95, it stifles the
competition from another free product.  This way the consumer wins!"

Kind regards,

Denys. . .

Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP America, Inc.
(800) 323-8863  (281) 288-7438         Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com                             www.hicomp.com


-----Original Message-----
From:   Glenn Cole [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Thursday, January 22, 1998 2:24 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Netscape to give away it's client software

Mike Gueterman writes:

> In an interesting (although not totally unexpected) development, Netscape
> is making the current version of Navigator and Communicator free to
everyone,
> and will post the source code to it's next version online for everyone.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posting the source was not unexpected??

BTW, there was a settlement today on the contempt charge.
Among others, TechWeb has some details:

        < http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/msftdoj/TWB19980122S0004 >

Basically, it's just what should have been done when the original
temporary injunction was ordered.

--Glenn Cole
  Software al dente, Inc.
  [log in to unmask]