[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DOJ actions -- Why not Windows 98?
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
> (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.
(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.
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?
home page: http://w