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
OK, fine. I demand you sell me an Escort with an XJ's V12, or else it's off to court we go! :)
How much Cobol was in computer devices after Cobol was essentially dead in current intentional use?
And someone else would sue them for "selling me a useless half-a-system that I can't do a damn thing with unless I buy something else just so I can use it."
This whole thing never was about what MS included or didn't include. It was about a bunch of monopolists, each facing for the first time in their corporate history some real competition -- from Microsoft -- and rather than compete, by offering more value at a better price, they chose to take a walk on the marxist side, and persuade the state to do their dirty work for them.
It would be like Ford pushing the gov't to prosecute GM for selling cars at a lower price with more features.
Those are parts of the user interface. When you write an application program for Windows, you draw on these objects to display your application.
These days a browser is a necessary part of any nontrivial OS. Any current art OS is expected to support at the very least the most-used networking protocols, and HTTP is at the top of that heap.
A web-browser is not the engine, Don. The web-broswer is an application program. The NT executive is the operating system. Application programs sit on top of the operating system. The operating system does not need an application to operate, but an application cannot operate without the operating system. The NT executive does not need Internet Explorer to read packets from the network and decode them, nor does it need it to manage memory or swap to virtual memory. Internet Explorer is an application program, because it relies on the operating system for those services in order for it to display websites.I chose the metaphor of tires because without tires you really aren't going to get very far. The automobile will still run in one spot, but it doesn't go anywhere. Thus my comparison with a web browser. The computer operating system will run fine without it, but it is a stand-alone machine. If you want to "go somewhere" you're going to need a web-browser. But the web-browser is not needed for the computer to operate. The engine of this hypothetical car will run just fine without the tires. The automobile will go no where without tires, and the computer will not visit any webpages without the browser.
You may have been able to get away with pushing that tripe five years ago, but not today. HTTP and HTML are used for lots of stuff beyond web browsing. Necessary stuff. I've seen CDs distributed that used the browser as a display engine. Why? Because they knew it would be available, and it beat the snot out of writing their own interface code from scratch.
But I suspect you already knew that a browser is an integral part of any current art OS.
Ah, screw me.
Pot, meet kettle.
Going somewhat out on a limb, because I don't know all the facts: Most Microsoft apps are now internet enabled -- they can display internet content directly in the application window without launching a separate browser. I believe this is what MS means when it says the alien has its hooks right in the nervous system of the OS.
For example, even if you don't purchase Office the Windows Help has hooks to the intenet and will retrieve and display intenet content.
For anyone in business who would like to have the latest version of help, this is a blessing. For the paranoid, it's a curse. Take your pick.
FYI, your electric power meter will soon be replaced with an internet enabled meter that will report your usage to the mother ship every 15 minutes or so. Welcome to the brave new world.
Is this news to you?
No kidding? I didn't realize GM was selling cars with the tires and rims permanently welded to the car. And since when have they started offering seat covers and paint in only one style and color?
Tripe? Can you please tone down what you write? Can you not write in a low, conversational tone?
I wholeheartedly agree that a web browswer is a common tool, if not ubiquitous one. It should be part of any suite of user applications. I don't really have a problem with Microsoft bundling a web browser with their desktop environment any more than I have a problem with them bundling a paint program.
But is a web broweser part of an operating system? No. Part of an end-user application suite? Yes. A necessary application? Yes. An intergal part of the operating system? No.
I think you may be trying to blur the definition of "operating system" and "user environment." I'll say again, I don't have any problem with Microsoft packaging Internet Explorer with it's popular Windows product. But let's be clear what is an application and what is an operating system.
Internet Explorer is an application program. Where I part ways with Microsoft is when they claim that removal of Internet Explorer prevents the computer from operating. This is patently false. Microsoft has admitted that the doctored videotape presentations in court regarding this fact. If you have a copy of Windows without Internet Explorer, you still have a funcitonal operating system that is capable of running Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, printing files, editing text, etc. This machine could even be attached to the network and run a database client. Windows still has that old-fashioned ftp client that runs in a command prompt.
This is because Internet Explorer isn't the operating system, it's a web browser. It's an application.
You are correct. Even though I know better I am running full OEM version of XP Home. There is no way to remove IE without manually deleting files and keys. Even so this does not keep you from running whatever browser you prefer. My suggestion is if you don't like Windows don't use it. You can download almost any version of Linux for free. Linux is much more powerful than Windows anyway. Windows is nothing more than a graphical interface for dos. Dos has nowhere near the power of Unix which is the base of Linux operating systems. Why do you think the majority of servers running the internet are using Unix instead of Dos. It all boils down to the fact that Microsoft does not call the shots on what you use at home unless you give them that power.
There are a great number of similarities between the IBM Antitrust Case (prosecuted by the government 1969 - 1982) and the Microsoft Antitrust Case. They are both cases involving an industry that moves extremely rapidly when compared to the glacial movements of the judicial system. In IBM's case the government proseuted the case for so long that the industry moved from mainframes to personal computers. As clones of the IBM PC eroded Big Blue's share of the market the government was forced to recognize the basis of the case were moot and unilaterally dropped the case in 1982. To sum it all up, against IBM the Justice Department was trying to hit a moving target, but the target had moved so much there was no point in shooting anymore, so they dropped the case. Many lawyers see a lot of the same problems for the government against Microsoft as the final settlement continues to be elusive as indicated by this latest Microsoft position.
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.