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

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:05:01 -0400 (EDT), Declan McCullagh wrote:

>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...


     Of course it does.  This supposed 'integration' was only done as a
way to bundle the browser.  From what I can tell the difference is more
about distribution rather than true 'integration'.  All M$ has really
done is change the packaging for IE by creating suspicious dependencies
and moving code needed for several OS services into IE related files. 
Hell, with these kinds of tactics you could even "integrate" the game
Doom into windoze.

 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *	
***********************************************