Re: DOJ actions -- Why not Windows 98?

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

  Microsoft's defense is that MSIE4.0 will *be* part of the operating
  system in Win98.   Indeed, if you install MSIE4.0 in Win95, and include
  the active desktop, it replaces the standard file manager with the
  browser.  For DOJ's actions to meaningful, DOJ has to prevent MS from
  achiving by product integration what it is a seeking to do through
  tying.   Jamie
  
  
  HIDAKA, Kazuaki wrote:
  > 
  > 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
  
  -- 
  ___________________________________
  James Love
  Center for Study of Responsive Law
  P.O. Box 1936, Washington, DC 20036
  voice 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176
  http://www.cptech.org  |  love@cptech.org