Re: Windows 98 unaffected by injunction? How can this be?

[Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>]

At 15:34 -0400 4/27/98, Brett Glass wrote:
>Several articles in the press -- including Fred Moody's column at
>
>http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/moody49.html
>
>-- claim that Windows 98 is unaffected by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's
>injunction. But, looking over the text of his order, I can't see why they
>believe this is so. The order specifically says that "successor" versions
>of Windows -- including Windows 98 -- are covered! Maybe I am missing
>something here, but how could Microsoft possibly ship Windows 98 unless the
>injunction were to be lifted?

Seem to me to be a couple diff questions here:

1. Does 1995 consent decree cover successor products? Yes. "successor
versions of or products marketed as replacements for the aformentioned
products"

2. Does consent decree cover W98? Arguably yes, if W98 is a successor version.

3. Does Dec 97 order cover successor products? Yes. "including Windows 95
or any succesor version thereof"

4. Does order cover W98? First, is it a successor version? Second, well,
keep reading...

5. Assuming arguendo that Jackson was right to grant injunction because W95
& IE are //not// integrated, does the fact pattern change with W98 and IE
4.0? Probably yes. Internet browser software is integrated, I believe, with
W98, so why would the consent decree and subsequent court order cover it?

6. However, does this apparent integration raise tying/bundling questions
for W98? You tell me...

-Declan