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: t2 who wrote (23992)	6/10/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: RTev	Respond to of 74651

I doubt MSFT will ever be friendly to IBM--bitter enemies to the end. And how does that change things? Microsoft has been brutal toward IBM ever since the breakup of the OS/2 partnership.

To: t2 who wrote (23992)	6/10/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

Instead, picking a hostile AOL witness was a good idea. I bet they picked the best one from AOL based upon the depositions. Maybe that guy won't try to do what Norris of IBM tried (unsuccessfully, i might add). Could we see an honest witness getting on the stand soon? My mistake. I did not realize Colburn was the AOL witness in the first phase of the trial. MSFT is just calling him back to challenge his credibility. This will be a "hostile" witness. BTW--trial resumes Monday with Colburn. Here is an updated story. biz.yahoo.com

To: t2 who wrote (23992)	6/10/1999 10:09:00 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

There's always a different view of who is doing well... From The NY Times: nytimes.com <<Government Witness Refutes Microsoft Arguments on Browser By JOEL BRINKLEY ASHINGTON -- The Government's final witness in the antitrust trial against the Microsoft Corporation on Thursday pulled apart many of Microsoft's arguments for tying a Web browser with the Windows operating system by showing that the company's own behavior often belies its courtroom justifications. The witness, Edward W. Felten, a computer science professor at Princeton University, is making his second appearance in court for the Government. The first time he testified, last December, he made an important point for the Government by showing that Microsoft could have offered Windows 98 without a workable Web browser -- something Microsoft had called impossible. In fact, Microsoft's effort later in the trial to debunk his December testimony using videotape demonstrations was so filled with errors and misleading assertions -- discovered by Dr. Felten and his assistants -- that the testimony proved to be an embarrassing courtroom debacle. A central allegation of the Government in the case against Microsoft is that the company improperly used its dominance in operating system sales to increase its share of the Web browser market. Microsoft maintains that the browser and the operating system are sold together because they are inextricably linked, and are essentially one product. On Thursday, Dr. Felten, under friendly questioning from a Government lawyer, ran through a series of justifications that Microsoft witnesses had offered for combining the browser, Internet Explorer, with the operating system. As an example, the lawyer recalled the testimony of James Allchin, a senior Microsoft executive, who said it was extraordinarily important to outside software developers writing programs for Windows to know that the browser was already there so that they wouldn't have to include it with their own programs if they intended to call on any of the browser's features. But Dr. Felten pointed out that half a dozen of Microsoft's own programs, like Money and Front Page, fail to follow that maxim, because in every case these separate programs come with Internet Explorer included. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson nodded during this testimony and asked Dr. Felten, "Why do they do it?" Among the tens of million of personal computers in use, Dr. Felten explained, many different versions of Internet Explorer are installed -- or no version at all. As a result, no software developer -- not even Microsoft -- can assume it is there.>>

To: t2 who wrote (23992)	6/11/1999 6:02:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

t2k: You are correct - nice summary. Regarding IBM they are the people that have been orchestrating this suit from day one. They were totally out thought and outmaneuvered by MSFT in the PC area and they are trying to make MSFT pay for it. Indeed the animosity will always remain as people die but corps. live on. The big problem with this case has been the Man from LaMancha presiding over the case. That is where the case is really being biased. He, like IBM, is seeking revenge for the last overturn. JFD