Cube, Mark, et al
At the risk of offering my unsought opinion where it is not wanted, it seems to me that a large portion of the current upthrust in INPR (and several other companies as well) is as much attributable to the finding of fact that Microsoft did monopolize the industry, as it is to any other single consideration.
For years, it has been unwise to invest in companies like Borland (whoops, Inprise) even if they had superior products, because the market was so dominated by Microsoft's marketing and tricks (like, for example, the "The product's not done until Lotus won't run." mentality, and like commandeering a file extension to invoke a Microsoft product instead of the Borland product for which it was originally intended, and many more) that it was extremely unlikely that the investment could return a profit.
Now ... with the legal finding of fact and the attendant lawsuits ... there is a reasonable chance that Microsoft's excesses are going to be curtailed. It is now possible that companies like INPR, with outstanding products, will actually be able to grow. In this environment, it is hardly surprising that investors are buying into those battered and severely underpriced companies. The chances for their success have improved dramatically over the past two months.
None of this is to denigrate the many good reasons given on this board for INPR's recent rise. It is just another idea that might be worthy of consideration. If the opinion is valid, it holds true for several other companies besides INPR. So far, that seems to have been the case.
Fred |
