Posted on 03/04/2002 11:14:46 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON, Mar 05, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Microsoft Corp.'s chief executive and the top executive involved with its Windows operating system are sticking with a position the company has held since the outset of the four-year antitrust case: They cannot pull the Internet Explorer Web browser out of Windows.
Nine states suing Microsoft for antitrust violations want to force the company to offer a version of Windows without the browser and other added features.
That would allow computer makers to install competitors' products, if they chose, without taking on the added cost of supporting both products. Currently, Microsoft's ubiquitous Windows has a leg up on competitors vying for the hearts of consumers and software designers.
In a videotaped deposition released Monday, Microsoft vice president and Windows chief Jim Allchin said Microsoft has "no way" to remove the browser from the company's flagship operating system.
"I couldn't do what you've got here," said Allchin, suffering from a severe cold. "Forget about any business thing. Technically I just couldn't do it."
Allchin said the company has done no studies to see if it could be done.
He referred to an especially embarrassing part of Microsoft's case, in which the company showed a videotape to make the argument that Windows would be damaged if a user attempted to remove the Internet Explorer Web browser. Microsoft later admitted the demonstration computer was rigged.
"Do you have any expectation as to whether or not you will be putting together a similar demonstration for this part of the case?" state lawyers asked.
"Not exactly like that one," Allchin said.
Steve Ballmer, a college friend of company founder Bill Gates and current chief executive officer, said Microsoft would be forced to offer an infinite number of Windows versions under the states' demands, all with or without extra features.
Ballmer said if the states should prevail with their demands, the decision would serve the interests of neither computer manufacturers nor users.
Instead, Ballmer said companies like Sun Microsystems, whose relationship with Microsoft is notoriously prickly, would dedicate themselves to frustrating Microsoft engineers.
"Sun Microsystems (can) go buy 10,000 copies, and they can have people just sit there and generate work requests to us every minute of every day," Ballmer said. "Somebody could say, 'Look, I want to make Microsoft's life miserable; so I'll tell you what, I'll pay you $10 million a year to torture Microsoft."'
The nine states revised their proposed penalties Monday. The new version reflects many complaints leveled by Ballmer and other executives.
For example, Microsoft would have to offer only one stripped-down version of Windows instead of many different ones.
Ballmer complained that it would be too expensive to build a version of the Java programming language to package with Windows, as requested by the states. The states clarified that Microsoft wouldn't have to bear those costs.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the modifications "clarify and sharpen our proposed remedies, without weakening them."
"The modified measures should deflate Microsoft's overblown rhetoric and apocalyptic predictions about the proposed remedies," Blumenthal said.
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, would not comment on the changes.
"It appears to be a number of changes made very late," Smith said. The company is still reviewing the document, he said.
Allchin admitted to lawyers for the states that Microsoft violated the law but refused to specify the violations.
"I don't think that I can summarize those," Allchin said. "I'm not an attorney."
The company faces several allegations of violations that involve infringing on consumer choice and unfairly hurting competitors.
The states' lawyers, Stephen Houck and Mark Breckler, asked if it would be important for the head Windows executive to know what the violations were, so they wouldn't be repeated.
"Well, it's a very complicated area," Allchin said. "Very complicated,"
---
On the Net: Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com
Connecticut Attorney General: http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/
By D. IAN HOPPER AP Technology Writer
Copyright 2002 Associated Press, All rights reserved
LOL!!! The poor grammer and demonstrated lack of reading comprehension skills should've been a tip-off.
Is it me, or is FR becoming infested with more and more idiots every day?
The core of the problem is that IE5SETUP is used to install/uninstall EVERYTHING on the Win2k - WinXP desktops. In order to totally eliminate IE from Windows, Microsoft is looking at a major re-design of it's install/uninstall routines and the new smart install/windows file protection schema built into it's Win2K Adv. Server and .NET Services.
Therein lies the problem, methinks. The browser itself is just window-dressing to the larger issue, IMO.
That's a spelling error, totally different! LOL! Nice catch. I don't believe I did that.....
However the operating system would cost $425 for the full version keeping the price of PC's virtually constant.
The problem is that Microsoft has negotiated contracts with the car manufacturers prohibitting them from pre-installing non-MS engines. Or making the manufacturer purchase an MS engine for cars that will never use them. This is the choice made by the manufacturers.
Most people do not realize the Microsofts real customers are companies like HP, Compaq, Gateway, Dell, and IBM. The people who use the software aren't Microsofts customers. Microsoft has used its market dominance to force hardware manufactures to exclude other competing software not for end users but for hardware manufacturers.
I wish this was where the government's case had gone and the remedies focused. Instead it focused on the stupid red herring Internet Browsers.
"Is this news to you?"
You originally presented it as a statement of fact. I asked you to substantiate it. You have not.
Stop nitpicking. No one is gonna buy an OS without a shell.
Do you really believe that lie, or you just repeating something you heard some muttonhead blubber out on some leet bord?
Windows has never been "nothing more than a graphical interface for dos". From inception, it was a cooperative multitasker (you know, like the notorious Crapentosh used for lo those many years, up until just recently). The early versions did indeed run on top of DOS, and used DOS interrupts to handle various I/O tasks.
Beginning with Win95, Windows was a preemptive multitasker (like unix). It used DOS as nothing more than a bootstrap loader, unless you needed to use "legacy" drivers (16 bit).
NT has been entirely "DOSless" from day one.
Please stop.
I know. Thus my "LOL!" in my reply. Damn, I'm still kicking myself.
And hey, what's with the Admin Moderator(s) "locking" the other Microsoft thread at post #270 telling people to "play nice?"
I sent a private reply to the Admin Moderator who did it and sarcastically asked if this had suddenly become lucianne.com. Boy, a few people get abusive on a thread and rather then THEY get scolded for it, the thread gets shut down and none of us can participate anymore.
What's next, the thought police around here?
(tapping foot, waiting for some thin-skinned Admin Moderator to yank my posting privledges after that comment)
Please, if you have a point, please make it. I don't enjoy ballroom dancing, and you're wearing me out.
Once again, the MS-haters nitpick to beat the band.
NOT if you call their file viewing window explorer, too...
Which..... it is!
I have. Presuming, that is, that navigating to a URL from within Word, and then viewing its content in the word document panel qualifies.
I simply asked a question.
"Hate" is your word, sir.
It drips from your replies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.