There is a tremendous amount of emotional verbiage on YHOO thread from short sellers regarding MSFT.
There are several things short sellers should consider:
1) Regardless of the OS outcome, MSFT has near monopoly in the Office software and can raise prices as it wishes.
2) MSFT is allowed to sell Win98 while trial is going on!!! End of case.
3) DOJ will get to slap MSFT's hands and make it stop some minor policy decisions such as dealer restrictions but not much more.
Here is the reason DOJ can not do much:
1) Probably the most primary function of a OS is to allow users to access and store information on disk.
2) This means that if you are in a LAN environment, it is the duty of the OS to allow you to mount and work with other disks on the net.
3) As LANs change, it is the duty of the OS to accommodate the new LANs and allow users to work with disks over the new LANs.
4) We have a new LAN - it is called the internet. It is the duty of the OS to allow users to mount any disk drive that makes itself available on the internet and then mess with the data in a number of ways. In order to do this, your OS ABSOLUTELY MUST be able to go out over the internet, find disk drives, and mount them for the user to use (plus do a lot of other data work). Any way you slice it or define it, the OS by definition becomes a internet browser. It is obviously crazy to say that MSFT should rewrite the Netscape browser (and all the other browsers) to make them able to do this. This is the reason, several weeks ago, that Microsoft was particularly heartened by the last sentence of the judicial order that allowed Win95 to escape injunction, in which the appeals panel said that blocking Windows 98 would "put judges and juries in the unwelcome position of designing computers.". Absolutely true.
It's a tough judicial decision. Everyone agrees MSFT should not be allowed to push its own products (like Web TV in Win98) to the exclusion of others, but to tell the OS designer it can not evolve the OS and view the internet as a LAN is crazy - that's the duty of the OS!! If you agree the designers should be stopped, then you have to spell out how the OS must be built! Another point: to tell MSFT that they must allow all other browsers to be able to mount and mess with disk drives over the internet is not realistic - imagine telling IBM that all the source code for OS2 must be made public so other people can make variations and changes to their OS. This is a no-winner for the feds - they can only demand distributor contract changes and a slow down in OS product promotions - insignificant! The feds will take what they can, don the fig leaf, and declare victory. MSFT will declare victory at the bank - they've got a license to print money and they will use it. The only thing stopping this train is treating it like a utility and we don't want to discuss that.
Another point: People are downplaying Win98 because there is no ad campaign (for obvious reasons). Everyone I know plans to buy it. The ability to use more than one monitor at the same time is reason enough for most people to buy it.
Bottom line:
Near term MSFT makes big $ on Win98. MSFT keeps its Office product monopoly and sets whatever price it wants on them. Feds make MSFT promise not to bully suppliers.
Incidentally:
You constantly hear "nobody beats the feds".
Ask IBM about that. From 1968 to 1983 the feds tried to bust up IBM saying that a computer company that owns box making + OS + programs is a super monopoly that must be broken up. - feds lost big time. Gave up in 1983. |
