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: clochard who wrote (24685)	6/22/1999 9:05:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

the issue is whether Microsoft used illegal means to hurt their competition, and in turn hurt the consumer by limiting their choice. In my view they did - the evidence is overwhelming. The fact that Microsoft technically isn't a monopoly now doesn't mitigate what they did in the past. MSFT lawyers would love a consensus that MSFT is not a monopoly now. The case would be over, now!!! BTW--We don't mind these kinds of discussions.

To: clochard who wrote (24685)	6/22/1999 9:43:00 PM
From: blankmind	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Steve - if MSFT unfairly hurt the competition - that's okay - our antitrust laws are to protect the consumer; not businesses - which is why Clintonista DOJ kept saying how MSFT may turn around & jack up prices in the future - but the argument is stupid - I can't see MSFT losing much

To: clochard who wrote (24685)	6/23/1999 12:21:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

SS: The issue is whether MSFT is 1. a monopoly and 2. used that position to hurt the consumer through the erection of illegal and artificial barriers to their market. According to your missive DOJ can't even get past step one. Step 2. cannot be proved. The price of Windows is about the same as the equivalent MacO/S but you get a lot more for your money with MSFT's products. If you think MSFT is such a rip off by a Mac. Where do you see in fact that the consumer has been harmed rather than benefitted by MSFT's success? Therefore, the gov't. has no case. The overwhelming "evidence" that you talk about is the inflamed rhetoric of MSFT internal memos(let's bury them, let's cut of their air supply) and the accusation by MSFT's competitors who stand to gain in the courts what they couldn't achieve in the market place. There is very little in real evidence (if any at all) to show that illegal contracts had been entered into by any party.I know where you are coming from and I know who you voted for. JFD