By Topic

US vs. Microsoft (again) - The browser war

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

1 Author(s)
Stern, Richard H. ; Ablondi, Foster, Sobin & Davidow pc, Washington, DC, USA

Bill Gates has a Win 95 contract with Compaq for preloading Win 95 on Compaq PCs. The contract requires Compaq to preload Win 95 in the same form (without modification) in which Microsoft provides Win 95. That form includes Internet Explorer 3 (IE 3) as a component of the total software package. (This is something like the way Sun licensed Java to Microsoft, although not the way Microsoft distributed its version. Hence, the Sun vs. Microsoft suit.) Compaq wanted to ship some of its PCs with Netscape instead of IE, or at least to replace the IE 3 icon on the PC's Win 95 start-up screen with a Netscape icon. Microsoft told Compaq that if it did so, Microsoft would terminate Compaq's Win 95 license. Compaq backed down. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has charged Microsoft among other things, strong-arming Compaq. The government has asked the court to hold Microsoft in contempt of court. The critical question in this contempt proceeding is not whether Microsoft is violating the antitrust laws by what it is doing with IE and Win 95. The only issue is whether the 1995 consent judgment (consent decree) forbids what Microsoft is doing.

Published in:

Micro, IEEE  (Volume:17 ,  Issue: 6 )