Re: DOJ actions -- Why not Windows 98?

[Hans Reiser <reiser@ricochet.net>]

  James Love wrote:
  
  > 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
  
  Do you folks think that I am correct in saying that for the DOJ argument to
  be logically consistent DOJ must make the argument that any OS component
  that has a competitor must be untied if it is feasible to do so?  That is
  what I found disappointing in reading the DOJ's argument, that they haven't
  owned up to what this logically necessitates.
  
  Fortunately, modern software technology makes it extensively feasible to
  perform this untying, and to allow consumers to configure the components
  they want from the vendor they want, download them over the net, and
  recompile the OS (e.g. Linux does it in a way that requires sophistication
  and effort, making it work for average users without a lot of time for
  system administration is technically quite feasible).  You could not do
  this effectively with assembly line factory work, and that is why we don't
  force GM to offer us a choice of all possible mufflers.   Anti-Trust
  policies must change with the technology.
  
  On a different topic, is it correct to think that section 6 (forfeiture) of
  Sherman Anti-Trust cannot be requested by a private action?  Or is it
  merely not usually done?
  
  Hans