DOJ actions -- Why not Windows 98?

["HIDAKA, Kazuaki" <Chaos@infonet-dev.co.jp>]

  Dear at-members ML subscribers and antitrust ML subscribers:
  
  Yesterday I posted, among others, the following question. Thank
  you all for some interesting replies.
  
  Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:41:22 +0900
  Subject: Re: Japan Microsoft Investigation
  (snip)
  > (3) Why do you think the Department intentionally avoided
  > mentioning Windows 98?
  
  The question was based squarely on the assumption that not only
  Windows 95 BUT ALSO WINDOWS 98 falls within the category of a
  "Covered Product," as defined by Section II (A) of the 1995 Final
  Judgment (Consent Decree) below.
  
    II.
    DEFINITIONS
    (A)"Covered Product(s)" means the binary code of (1) MS-DOS 6.22,
    (2) Microsoft Windows 3.11, (3) Windows for Workgroups 3.11, (4)
    predecessor versions of the aforementioned products, (5) the
    product currently code-named "Chicago," and (6) successor versions
    of or replacement products marketed as replacements for the
    aforementioned products, whether or not such successor versions or
    replacement products could also be characterized as successor
    versions or replacement products of other Microsoft Operating
    System Software products that are made available as stand-alone
    products to OEMs pursuant to License Agreements, or as unbundled
    products that perform Operating System Software functions now
    embodied in the products listed in subsections (1) through (5).
    The term "Covered Products" shall not include "Customized"
    versions of the aforementioned products developed by Microsoft;
    nor shall it apply to Windows NT Workstation and its successor
    versions, or Windows NT Advanced Server.
  
  Because Windows 98 is NOT yet introduced? That may be true. But DOJ
  alleged in its Petition as follows:
  
    7. ... In order to stop Microsoft's ongoing violation and prevent
    its imminent future violation of the Final Judgment, and thereby
    protect the integrity and underlying purpose of the Final
    Judgment, the United States requests that the Court adjudge
    Microsoft in civil contempt of the Final Judgment and impose the
    relief requested below.
  
    OFFENSE CHARGED
    17. Microsoft has violated and continues to violate Section IV (E)
    (i) of the Final Judgment by requiring OEMs to license and
    preinstall Internet Explorer 3.0 as a condition of licensing
    Windows 95. Moreover, Microsoft will violate that Section in the
    future by requiring OEMs to license and distribute Internet
    Explorer 4.0 as a condition of licensing Windows 95. ...
  
  Do you think Microsoft will NOT violate that Section in the imminent
  future by requiring OEMs to license and distribute IE 4.0 as a
  condition of licensing Windows 98?
  
  Sincerely yours,
  
  =====
  Kazuaki Hidaka
  e-mail: Chaos@InfoNet-Dev.Co.Jp
  home page: http://w