Microsoft Corp was once again unapologetic in the face of allegations that it did not comply with Judge Thomas Jackson’s previous order to provide licensees of Windows 95 with a version of the operating system without Internet Explorer included. Microsoft seemed to be arguing that it was just following orders and took Jackson’s order to mean that it should provide software that did not work, an assumption that did not go down to well with Jackson. According to a Bloomberg report, Jackson said to David Cole, Redmond’s VP who over saw IE’s development, It seemed absolutely clear that I entered an order that required you to distribute a product that would not work. That’s what you’re telling me? Cole replied, Yes, we followed that order. It wasn’t my place to consider the consequences. Jackson has told both Microsoft and the Department of Justice to deliver 10-page summaries of facts and findings by January 19 and closing arguments are scheduled for 10am, January 22. Jackson will then decide whether or not Microsoft failed to comply with his order of December 11. Microsoft claims it had said in filings that if IE were removed completely, Windows 95 would not work. Cole demonstrated during the afternoon session that, after ‘removing’ IE using Windows 95’s Add/Remove utility, he could still access IE’s underlying functions using third-party software such as Quicken and Visio Professional. The DoJ’s attorney focused on whether third-party or new code was required to get IE to work after using the utility.
