Look, we are talking about MSFT investment here, no?
So, you can cry in your cup and decry DOJ all you want.
The real question is not whether you think it is fair,
correct, whatever, but what the impact will be on MSFT.
My opinion is that MSFT may have made a strategic mistake.
The judge was trying to provide a temporary compromise
position until full review. MSFT decided to play hardball
with this decision, which has now raised the ire of DOJ
to another level and may also push the judge into a more
hostile position. The reality is that throwing down the
gauntlet forces DOJ and the government to carry this thing
through to the max. Otherwise DOJ is sending a message to
all other companies under anti-trust scrutiny that they
can be ignored. My suspicion is that this will cost MSFT
real money in fines, lawyers, and lobbiests, and that they
will likely end up in a worse position than before.
Actually, the move by the states is likely to cause more
significant problems in the short run. If MSFT gets into
serious haggles with state attornies, the states could
punish MSFT in more damaging ways than DOJ, both in terms of
monetary penalties and control of purse (educational purchases,
for example--nixing these new deals MSFT is trying to ink
with public schools).
I also fear that the press is going to play this anti-MSFT.
Why? Because there is no drama playing it the other way.
So, MSFT longs should look at these issues with respect to
the potential impact on the bottom line, and not in terms of
what they think the DOJ ought to do, or what the ideal world
should be like.
JMO |
