[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Whether IE4 is Application Rather than OS avoids the deeper question of component competition
I feel that this is the wrong place to draw the line. We should not ask
what is an OS component, what is not. We should ask for what components is
there a competitor desiring to supply a competing component. Then we should
recognize that modern software technology affords a flexibility that makes
it feasible to at installation time compile in the configured components (or
demand compile them as they are used if you want to be sophisticated), and
charge a credit card over the internet (or any of innumerable other
reasonable compensation schemes) for the selected components.
Then we should consider it a restraint of trade for an OS vendor to not
perform due diligence in cooperating with those who want their OS components
to integrate effectively, and resolve the inevitable technical disputes that
arise through a binding arbitration policy.
I know that some of you will feel that this is extreme, but I feel it is
more that the technology has changed and our societal mechanisms have not
yet caught up.
James Love wrote:
> In a discussion on JavaLobbyCafe@iceworld.org, Michael McMain made this
> A friend at work made an interesting point about MS's claim that IE4 is
> simply an OS extension and not an application. All the DA has to do is
> on a Power Mac, start IE4, turn to MS and say "So what other parts of
> OS run on the Macintosh exactly?".
There is in principle nothing to prevent Apple from also licensing and using
the NTFS file system.