I'll respond if I feel like it, old Regimundo. I notice that you fall back on the Microphile defense line #1, the classic ad hominem, you're a Microsoft hater. Always good to go back to basics in the cheesy high school debate techniques department, eh? Plus that old favorite, the ever elusive context of the Mind of Reg(TM). As for finance, the only thing I ever bring up is those multitudinous options Microsoft hands out, now requiring stock buybacks approximately equal to income to fund. But they're not really stock buybacks, right? If Microsoft employees actually had $30 billion worth of options, they could stage an employee buyout, right?
As for 30k posts, no I think I'll just go back to an old favorite that's easy to dig up.
Dan, all of that typing and you have said nothing. MSFT has set no precedent, hih? So I assume that the decision handed down by the Justice department on per processeor deals, OS bundling and online networks must simply be in my imagination. If not, what does it mean. The JD has already rendered a decision on MSFT. Their decision is an interpretation of the law, by the top cops in the country. Their decision apparently states that MSFT is currently, and has not historically been in no major violation of anti-trust policies as currently interpreted by our nations honorable adjudication system (sans the decree issued, of course). If you don't like it, fine. If you don't agree with thier decision, that is
fine as well, but stop pretending that it didn't happen. If it happened, it can be considered precedent. (http://www2.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-2349350)
What this means, in the right context of course, is that nobody has pinned anything on Microsoft yet. I admit, I was totally misreading the context there, I had asked about judicial precedent enshrining the "Chicago School" as the one true interpretation of antitrust law. Silly me. There's also the little matter of the consent decree, which I thought meant Microsoft couldn't require payment for every CPU an OEM shipped, but it turns out it means they can't require twice as much per cpu, if somebody has the nerve to ship something else. In addition to Bill's OS of choice. It's all quite confusing, I admit.
As to your gigobytes of DCF data, I'll leave the last word to your hero Bill.
Random. It's a random number. It's all finance! Demand means nothing! It's some market analyst spewing out numbers because he's supposed to! Once you prove that the revenue stream is there, you can borrow the money you need to build the network which runs the applications that create the demand. It's all finance. No one can project what the numbers are going to be by the end of the decade. It's random! (from redherring.com
Cheers, Dan. |
