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 (24863)	6/24/1999 5:59:00 PM
From: Teflon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I don't disagree with you, t2k, but as I said to Morgan, I am upset at the fundamentals behind this case that are evidencing themselves before our very eyes - in broad daylight and in plain English - and yet the general public seems indifferent. Of course we all believed that the DOJ and the rest of the sc_mbags supporting their position were in this together, but never before have we had examples to hang our hats on. Well, the hat rack just showed up, and I am tossing every lid I have on it. My God, what has Clinton created... I might have to consider moving to Canada<ggg> Teflon

To: t2 who wrote (24863)	6/24/1999 6:21:00 PM
From: RTev	Respond to of 74651

In the Seattletimes story i posted earlier, MSFT was given the choice of jury or judge and they selected to have the case decided by a judge.(can someone confirm this?). If they knew it would be Jackson, why would they choose this route? Juries often make terrible decisions in these kinds of cases. Once they've made a decision, however, it's difficult to get it overturned. I once worked (as staff) on a case where every appeals court from the state's, to the federal circuit court (twice), and the the Supreme Court, noted that the jury had probably made an errant decision on the facts, but the courts refused to overturn the jury. Several stories have noted that appellate courts are more likely (but still reluctant) to review findings of fact made by a judge. Another problem is time: We'd still be in the middle of the case in main if this were a jury trial. They wouldn't have been able to use the trick of giving written direct testimony. They would probably have had to read to the jury all the of deposition testimony submitted as evidence. And then there's Boies. The press loved to watch him in this trial because they knew that when he stood in front of a witness (especially a hostile witness) that there would be fireworks. I suspect Microsoft didn't want to have him standing in front of a jury.

To: t2 who wrote (24863)	6/24/1999 7:01:00 PM
From: Alan Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

[...MSFT was given the choice of jury or judge and they selected to have the case decided by a judge. If they knew it would be Jackson, why would they choose this route?] For the answer, compare the results of the AAPL "look and feel" trial and the STAC Electronics case. Technical jury trials are a problem for "richest man" Gates and "deep pockets" MSFT. The average juror doesn't understand the technical details and decides to slam MSFT because "they won't miss the money anyway". STAC had a really lame case in which they basically claimed proprietary rights to well known hashing algorithms. The STAC lawyers threw up a blizzard of obfuscatory technical arguments then reminded the befuddled jury that MSFT is rich and STAC is not. The jury gave STAC $140M. They immediately faded into obscurity because, in reality, there was nothing special about their technology at all. In the AAPL case, on the other hand, the federal judge (forget his name) painstakingly reviewed the technical facts and ignored the anti-MSFT media circus. He probed with converging questions until he understood the issue well enough to make an intelligent decisions on each individual complaint. MSFT slowly but surely whittled the case down to nothing. Unfortunately, MSFT drew "doesn't Yahoo" Jackson who is obviously incapable of fully understanding the case before him and rarely rules against the government anyway. Don't panic. This case has been headed to the appeals court since the day it was filed.