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: William Hunt who wrote (24044)	6/11/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Thanks for posting that. A good summary with the useful battle of the lawyers quotes. Here's another lawyer sound bite from the story linked below that will make most of the folks here feel good: "Jackson has already made up his mind," said William Kovacik, a George Washington University antitrust law professor who attended most of the trial this week and has followed it from the beginning. "He's making it really difficult for them to get their evidence on the table. He's making Microsoft fight for every yard." Most of the SeaTimes story covers what was apparently an entertaining day in the court as Microsoft's lawyers finally got their gotcha with Felton's silly removal program: Defense spars with expert over browser-removal program seattletimes.com This time, [Microsoft lawyer Steven] Holley came to court prepared and confident. Microsoft's attorneys were smiling. Richard Urowsky, one of the chief legal minds behind Microsoft's case, repeatedly turned completely around in his chair to watch the reaction of journalists covering the trial. ... Jackson questioned the test's validity. "They are irrelevant if Dr. Felten seems to think they aren't probative of something," the judge said. Holley insisted that the test be allowed. ... "As much as I respect your technical ability," Jackson told Holley, "you cannot provide the authentication for this." Holley insisted: "The demonstration is so dramatic that I think you will appreciate it." Jackson relented. "Well, Mr. Holley really wants to run this program," Jackson said, as the courtroom broke out in laughter. "Just click on whatever he tells you to click on." ... [After he had run the removal program], Holley told Felten to click on usdoj.gov , the Department of Justice's Web site and sulcrom.com , the site for Holley's law firm. The sites came alive. Holley said: "What is that, Mr. Felten?" Felten replied: "I don't know how it got there." Holley: "That's the Internet." Felten: "Could be."

To: William Hunt who wrote (24044)	6/11/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

WH: Thanks for the article. Unfortunately the article presents a rather DOJ scripted view of the whole proceeding and ends fittingly enough with the comment that new ground would have to be broken for MSFT to be found guilty of monopolization. The article is a great example of how the government's case rests on internal EMails and negotiating tough talk but not on outcomes such as signed contracts and the like. Where they have MSFT guilty of dealing unfairly in various and sundry contracts these have already been amended months ago. This whole case is an attempt to place gov't. in charge of business and will be seen as such by the higher courts. There is little doubt that since Jackson has so engaged himself on the side of DOJ that he will come down against MSFT but his problem rests in what should the remedy be for something that needs no remedy unless we are to change the landscape of how American businesses compete. Will it be through one's connection to the Commisars or who brings the most value to the market place? We wasted our time defeating the Red Menace if the outcome of this whole sad affair is that government will decide what value in the market place is fair and further how products should be designed. There is a lot riding on this outside of MSFT (who in the long run will prevail by providing the best products at the greatest perceived value). For all of you who hate MSFT go back 10 yrs and ask yourself whose arm MSFT was twisting then when its products were inferior to those that they offer today. Why did you buy them then and not IBM's, why did Lotus need to sell out, why didn't you all flock to AAPL, what happened to the promise of UNIX? In those days how many of MSFT's present day detractors were buying MSFT products which are no match for their refined sequels of today? This case is one built on snippets of EMails, corp. whining, and crass governmental interference- there is no hard evidence i.e. contracts, harmed consumers that could cause any reasonable person to find MSFT guilty. JFD