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 : Wind River going up, up, up! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (5501)	6/16/1999 10:30:00 PM
From: Greg Jung	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10309

With this product, no, not on any sustained basis. They are already the dominant product. From a small base, 30% growth is easier. For a profitable enterprise, not likely. If there is a product segment ripe for rapid growth, it is handled by private operations Best counterexamples (in other industries) might be Cisco, Dell, although in Dell's case now you have less market share growth and the same anemic/non-existant growth in overall PC sales. Cisco has pricing power and near monopolist status as supplier to an industry begging to lose more money. Still I think the total lifetime earnings of Cisco is a small fraction of current stock price - the tendency is to relentlessless grow and grow the tech company, defer actual return as sacrifice to growth until somethings occurs to cause a crash & burn. While your company makes its 30% growth targets there are naive investors willing to extrapolate the temporary state to the everafter and run the stock to great heights. Even the idea of such a state can, in todays market, cause such behavior. Currently this is happening in the cable supply industry (HLIT), storage (EMLX, ANCR, EMC, QLGC) and the sugar-water (KO). In case of WRS there really isn't a big crash& burn I can discover, probably getting wind of the new fee structure caused institutional dumping. I'm not reluctant to trade it, and the lower limit on the downside is to my advantage. Greg

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (5501)	6/17/1999 7:25:00 AM
From: David M. Sawyer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10309

WRS on Microsoft "enemies list" disclosed in Fed trail U.S. Says Microsoft Compiled 'Enemies List' of Its Rivals By JOHN R. WILKE and KEITH PERINE Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- New documents released in the final days of the Microsoft Corp. antitrust trial show that the company drew up an "enemies list" of small software makers and that Chairman Bill Gates discussed the best way to leak a favorable e-mail message to the press. Independent software makers were listed as "friends," "enemies" or "neutral," and should be treated accordingly, said a Microsoft e-mail offered as evidence. It added that an "initial blacklist" should consist of "hostile" firms and those firms working on technologies that "Microsoft does not like to see flourishing." A second memo has Mr. Gates telling a public-relations executive how to leak an e-mail that he wrote this past December. A Leaked Document The e-mail detailed Mr. Gates's view that America Online Inc.'s $10 billion purchase of Netscape Communications Corp. would hurt the government's case against Microsoft. After leaking the document to the Associated Press, a PR person reported back to Mr. Gates that the tactic was effective "as a press release," and added, "if we give it to everyone, it looks cooked and no one will cover it." The exchange was more than simply embarrassing. Last week, Microsoft's lawyers had tried to introduce the Gates e-mail on AOL into evidence, telling the judge that it had just been found in America Online's files and was marked "highly confidential." In a motion Wednesday that included the subsequent e-mails to the PR person, the government suggested the court had been misled by Microsoft, because the Gates e-mail on AOL wasn't confidential and was self-serving. The "enemies list" memo was cited during cross-examination of Microsoft's next-to-last witness in the case, Gordon Eubanks, former chief executive officer of Symantec Corp. The list surfaced in a pending private lawsuit brought against Microsoft by Bristol Technology Inc. and it isn't clear whether it will carry any weight in the U.S. case. The list focuses on Microsoft's rivals in a narrow market segment. For example, it listed Wind River Systems Inc. as an enemy, because it was outselling Microsoft in a small but strategically crucial market for operating-system software for non-PC devices. In the list, a Microsoft manager weighs whether licensing restrictions for the company's Windows NT source code should be waived for 13 smaller software firms. 'A Little Niche Product' Tom Burt, a Microsoft lawyer, said the e-mail concerned "a little niche product" and a spokesman said some of the "enemies" in the e-mail were subsequently granted the waiver. The list "does not reflect the company's policy," was written by a new employee, and ultimately wasn't implemented, the spokesman said. Earlier, Mr. Eubanks testified that software developers are now more focused on writing programs for the Internet than for the Windows operating system, suggesting its dominance of the industry is fading. But Mr. Eubanks wasn't warning of Microsoft's demise. He was called to the stand to tell the court that Microsoft faces myriad threats, and that the industry is healthy and highly competitive. "The platform of choice for developers is shifting" from the desktop operating system to Internet browsers, Mr. Eubanks said. That is the point, the government argues in its case, because Microsoft is on its way to dominating Internet software as well. In its lawsuit, the government alleged Microsoft illegally protected its Windows monopoly, then tried to use it to wrest control over Internet-access software. Mr. Eubanks also cited Linux, a rival operating system, as a threat. "To discount Linux would be like discounting Windows in 1995," he testified. He did concede that Microsoft had a "monopoly," but said he was using the term as an "amateur," not a lawyer, and that having a single standard helped consumers. On cross-examination, a government lawyer charged that Mr. Eubanks "made a conscious effort to avoid competing with Microsoft because you were afraid they'd step on you." "Absolutely not true," Mr. Eubanks responded angrily from the stand. "That is absolutely not true!"