If my memory serves right (it's kind of fading these days; it's been a long time....) it was the result of patent claims from some state-funded institution in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n
Oracle Goddess sends word that YouTube is presenting IE6 users with a banner exhorting them to upgrade to a modern browser, and TechCrunch is reporting that YouTube will be phasing out support for IE6 soon. This Twitter search reflects the jubilation breaking out all over the Net at the imminent demise of this most despised and non-standards-compliant browser. The market share for IE6 is now well down in the single digits.
But for M$FT, it is a perfectly rational approach to play down the concerns about malware, phishing, etc. Usual discourses about these issues usually end up at their door. As a corporate strategy, it makes more sense to get people to discuss ad nauseam about human virtues, strippers, drug dealers or for that matter about anything else, so long as the issue at hand stays muddled.
I am really trying to understand the correlation between a "commercial" (as in motivated by profit) operation and the spread of computing and thus I am not particularly interested about the "licensing" part here.
Any free distribution (initial) with the aim of recouping profits in a future time is also not of interest. (In this scenario, it clearlys show that there is a role of FOSS, (i.e. free as in free beer).
I would like to explore if MSFT's activities were "commercial" or "non-commercial". I wonder if there is any way of finding out how much licensing income MSFT generated. Just thinking aloud.