Talk:Spyglass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The removed paragraph did indeed violate NPOV policies. However, the current article does not inform enough on the Microsoft deal. Is it acceptable to reinsert as the following?;

"After first trying to license the Netscape Navigator browser Microsoft then tried to negotiate directly with the NCSA and finally went to Spyglass. The deal signed was for royalties paid on each copy sold and was extended to Dec 1998. The arrangement for the licence was that Spyglass would receive a base quarterly fee plus a royalty from Microsoft's revenues for the software.

Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (making no direct revenues on IE) paid only the minimum quarterly fee. In 1997, Spyglass threatened Microsoft with a contractual audit, in response to which Microsoft settled for US $8 million."

replacing:

"The arrangement for the licence was that Spyglass would receive a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software. Microsoft subsequently bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and thus (making no direct revenues on IE) paid only the minimum quarterly fee. In 1997, Spyglass threatened Microsoft with a contractual audit, in response to which Microsoft settled for US $8 million. [1]" --CalPaterson Thu 7 Jul

I've made basically these changes and the article now has a NPOV. I've also removed the disputed tag, because it appears it really wasn't that disputed; one guy just posted something with a POV. Anyone disagrees, feel free to add it back and discuss here.. —Cleared as filed. 9 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)