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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thure Meyer who wrote (23442)	7/6/1999 11:01:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Certainly, according to this, that MS "internal debate" article was a plant: theregister.co.uk I, of course, fell for it, hook, line and sinker. But, on reflection, personally, I think whether it's a plant or not is irrelevant. The issue is still the same it has always been, whether Microsoft feigns a debate over it or not: what is going to be the principle which guides their conduct of the litigation -- preserving the sacred corporate structure or protecting the freedom of the people who work there to engage in the development and sale of software? Personally, I vote for the second as the guiding principle. But, of course, Microsoft's behavior to date clearly shows it to have been almost exclusively concerned with the first, its rhetoric notwithstanding. And, if they have to choose between the two, my guess is it won't be until all the appeals are over. But alas, I repeat myself.

To: Thure Meyer who wrote (23442)	7/16/1999 3:59:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Think Gates can afford to pay the judgment? Friday July 16 1:56 PM ET Microsoft Wins Most of Conn. Case BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) - A U.S. District Court jury Friday found that Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) did not violate antitrust laws in its dealing with a small Danbury software company. The jury did find, however, that Microsoft had committed deceptive practices in violation of the Conn. Unfair Trade Practices Act, but awarded Bristol Technology Inc. just $1 in that claim.