Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: banker's lady who wrote (23969)	6/10/1999 4:16:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Exactly! It seems like a stupid argument for the government to put up in this case. In addition, the Windows 95 successfull appeal of Jackson's ruling tells MSFT it is OK to add the IE functionality in its operating system. We have a precedence in this case!! If Jackson chooses to ignore it, I bet the appeals court judges won't be too happy. I know this is supposed to be driven law but emotions will get in the way at both levels of court. BTW,I wonder if Jackson is still pondering sending the case straight to the supreme court bypassing other levels (there is way to do this). I doubt it though as the Supreme Court can send it back to go through the proper channels(thanks to the AOL/Netscape merger) as the urgency won't be there..

To: banker's lady who wrote (23969)	6/10/1999 4:21:00 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Ms. banker's lady, Seems that if they get away with finding a company culpable for damages based on the "potential for harm" (ie: including a browser because it "may" allow viruses a means of entry).. What about suing the gun manufactures? Every weapon has a "potential for harm". I'm not a lawyer, thank goodness, but doesn't there have to be actual harm not just potential. Thank You JK

To: banker's lady who wrote (23969)	6/10/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I'm also no lawyer, but I think you overestimate the importance of Jackson's comment (as I did in quoting the story). He is a lawyer, and although being a good lawyer was not a requirement for appointment back when Reagan was packing the courts with litmus-test jurists like Jackson, he seems to be at least a moderately good one. A trait I've noted among some good lawyers is that they become curious about things technical. Jackson seems most likely to go off on these tangents when a technical person is on the stand. I suppose it's better for both sides that Jackson ask such questions to clarify issues in his own mind rather than move onto the decision phase with a muddled view of things. To his credit, Felton seems to have discounted the importance of the issue by pointing out that companies have more efficient ways of preventing viruses. Microsoft won't be found liable for "damages based on 'potential for harm'". Rather, Felton's testimony is needed to make the case that the browser market was separate from the OS market. In his initial testimony he seemed to emphasize that IE wasn't really integrated all that well into the OS. Today's testimony seemed to move to a more reasonable tack: that, although it is integrated, the integration was a product decision that was not necessary.