Re:MS Hearing b4 Jackson

["Glenn T. Livezey" <glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu>]

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:07:03 -0500 (EST),  Kathleen H. Hilton wrote:
>this email will probably arrive after you have picked the story up off of
>the wires, but just in case, MS and DOJ announced a settlement at this
>morning's hearing before Judge Jackson.  please note the settlement and the
>order accepted by Judge Jackson apply ONLY to the issue of compliance with
>Judge Jackson's 12/11/97 preliminary injunction.  the order states that MS
>will now notify OEMs that 2 additional WindowsR 95 licensing options are
>available.  in remarks made after the hearing Mr. Neukom stated that MS is
>very pleased with the order because MS wants to concentrate on the real
>issues involved in the case and the case as it goes forward in the court of
>appeals.  the following language is verbatim (typos nothwithstanding) from
>the order:
>(a)  The option of licensing and preinstalling OEM Service Release 2.0
>("OSR 2.0") of Windows 95 as modified to reflect the set of changes that
>would be made by running the Add/Remove Programs utility with respect to
>Internet Explorer 3.x, based on instructions to be provided promptly by
>Microsoft to the United States for its review and comment and then to OEMs;
>and
>(b)  The option of licensing and preinstalling OSR 2.0 of Windows 95 as
>modified by removing the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop and from
>the Programs list in the Start menu and by marking the file called
>IEXPLORE.EXE "hidden", based on instructions to be provided promptly by
>Microsoft to the United States for its review and comment and then to OEMs.

Once again I bow to the experts among us with respect to the legal wording or the
practical software adjustments it implies, but until corrected I will say this................ 
If that is all the judge requires of this "agreement", then my previous assessment
of its colonic origins seems justified (cf MS/DOJ "movement", from PA Petricone) .

My interpretation of this is that either 
(a) MS will provide instructions to OEM's for running "Add/Remove Programs" 
(move the mouse to the button that says.....) or its functional equivalent, (and we all
 know how thorough and effective that will be in purging IE), -OR- 
(b) MS will  "allow" the user's computer to house all IE related files on their harddrive
without their knowledge or the one (or no) button option to invoke IE. (which will 
likely also ship with  a one button "Screw the DOJ" utility to reverse these cosmetic 
changes). 
We are also likely to see a change in the installation instructions for all other  MS 
software from the ever popular (and loosely translated) 
"and now before we proceed with what you thought you bought, we will install IE" 
to the NEW IMPROVED 
"and now before we proceed with what you  thought you bought, press the 'Screw
the DOJ' button, then enter.....".

The key word in the above "order" is "OR" allowing MS to choose the cosmetic 
"change" and retain all offending code, including that which interfere's with the
proper functioning of nonMS installed software. Anybody want to make a bet as
to whether this will provide anymore relief to the consumer, or will satisfy the "spirit"
of the court's order - as vs a technically qualified legal response/stall tactic?

With this legal Circus in session, all the roman people lack is bread..................


   

 
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
Director of Perinatal Research
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of Nebraska Medical Center
600 South 42nd Street
Omaha, NE 68198-3255
Phone- 402-559-8064
FAX- 402-559-7126
e-mail glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu