Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1997/Microsoft.again.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
Microsoft again
``` [In a related development, the Justice Department announced that it is extending its Witness Protection Program to software entrepreneurs who break the software industry's code of silence by turning state's evidence against Microsoft. Those who rat will get a nose job, a condo with a T-1 line in Telluride, a new round of venture capital, and their applications ported to Java. (That's a joke.)]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:29:04 -0500 (EST)
From: James Love
---
Info-Policy-Notes | Newsletter available from listproc@cptech.org
---
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES November 19, 1997
Restrictive licensing of the MS Windows 95 Common Control DLL to force software companies to distribute MSIE4.0
The following is a letter written to the US Department of Justice by Brian Glaeske, of Great Plains Software. The issue concerns the ability of independent software developers to use and distribute updated files for Microsoft's Windows operating system. One of these files is Comctl32.dll, which is an important file, apparently referred to as the common control dll. Mr. Glaeske says this is one of Microsoft's enhancements to the original version of Windows 95, and that it must be distributed to users for third party software to work properly. (So that all users have the ability to use the features of the OS which are found in a particular "Applications Program Interface," or API).
However, in order for Great Plains Software or any other firm to distribute Comctl32.dll, they must abide by a Micrsoft license agreement, which is on the Web at:
http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/inetsdk/help/itt/IEProg/Licensing.htm#ch_MSHTML_licensing
A portion of that license agreement is given below:
Licensing and Distribution
Application developers who want to redistribute Microsoft( Internet Explorer technologies, such as the WebBrowser control, Wininet.dll, Urlmon.dll, or Comctl32.dll, must obtain a redistribution license for Microsoft( Internet Explorer 4.0. The Internet Explorer self-extracting executable installs a number of system files and registry entries in addition to the actual WebBrowser control.
Thus, according to Mr. Glaeske, third party software developers are forced to distribute Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Indeed, it seems from the license agreement that a user would actually have to install MSIE4.0 to obtain Comctl32.dll. Thus independent software companies who program for the Window 95 platform are required to distribute and install Microsoft's applications. Mr. Glaeske asks the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate this practice.
James Love love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
---
Mr. Glaeske's letter follows:
Brian Glaeske
Joel I. Klein Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC antitrust@usdoj.gov
Dear Mr. Klein:
I am writing to ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect consumers by taking action to prevent Microsoft from using anticompetitive practices to monopolize the market for Internet browsers. Specifically, Microsoft should not be permitted to force third party developers to redistribute Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to use features found in a programming API (Application Program Interface).
A specific API shipped originally with the Microsoft Windows 95 OS (Operating System) and was just recently enhanced with new features that make it attractive for third party developers to use. This API is known to developers as the Common Control DLL. Because this is an enhancement to the OS that came after the initial release of Microsoft Windows 95, it is necessary for third party developers to distribute the updated OS components with their software in order to ensure that their software works properly. However, Microsoft is not allowing developers to redistribute only the components that they need, instead Microsoft is demanding that Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 is distributed with the third party software
It is the responsibility of DOJ to ensure that Microsoft does not use its OS monopoly to monopolize the market for applications. I believe that forcing third party developers to distribute Microsoft Internet Explorer is a blatant anti-competitive act.
Sincerely, Brian Glaeske 1539 14th St. S. Fargo, ND 58103-4001 bglaeske@cogs.gps.com
---
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a newsletter sponsored by the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), a project of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of Info-Policy-Notes are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/ (no period). CPT's Web page is http://www.cptech.org (no period). CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176. Subscription requests to listproc@cptech.org with the message: subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.