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: ericneu who wrote (25957)	7/13/1999 6:26:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

This one certainly seems like the most frivolous of the various lawsuits to me. If a competitor of theirs was willing to accept the exact same deal that Bristol rejected, how can that be a violation of the antitrust laws? I think the jury will side with MSFT. Once this news gets to others, it should make them think twice about sueing. Even if they lose, this one won't hold up in appeals. IMHO of course.

To: ericneu who wrote (25957)	7/13/1999 6:32:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Eric and All: This article confirms your post: JFD July 13, 1999 15:50 Noted Antitrust Attorney Robert McTamaney Comments on Bristol Technologies v. Microsoft Case NEW YORK, July 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Robert A. McTamaney, an antitrust attorney with Carter, Ledyard & Milburn in New York, commented on the case: "The Bristol Technologies case seems to me just an attempt by Bristol to play the American litigation lottery. This is simply not an antitrust case, but rather an obvious effort by Bristol to secure better licensing terms from Microsoft than Bristol's competitors. There is no antitrust case since at least one of Bristol's competitors has licensed acceptable parts of the Microsoft source code and has apparently enjoyed a substantial increase in sales of its conversion software as a result. Bristol had a contract with Microsoft, it expired, and Bristol records suggest that its later negotiations were more directed toward setting the stage for a lawsuit against Microsoft than really trying to negotiate a new deal. Bristol now says that Microsoft promised orally that it would extend the agreement, but the Bristol contract itself clearly said that it could only be amended in writing, so there isn't any valid contract claim either, and Microsoft has continued to offer to license Bristol on the same terms happily accepted by Bristol's competition. I just hope that the jury is savvy enough to see this case for what it is -- one competitor, Bristol, trying to get an unfair advantage over another, and Microsoft, to its credit, refusing to let them do that." Robert A. McTamaney is a partner at Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, a Wall Street law firm founded in 1854. Carter, Ledyard's general practice includes corporate, securities, mergers and acquisitions, media and technology, litigation, trusts and estates, maritime, environmental, employment, telecommunications, ERISA, intellectual property, exempt organization, antitrust, real estate, and tax. Significant portions of the firm's practice involve representation of overseas-based clients and their U.S. affiliates, and representation of financial services, media, technology and Internet clients. The firm, with approximately 100 attorneys, is headquartered at Two Wall Street in downtown New York City, with additional offices in midtown Manhattan and Washington, D.C. SOURCE Carter, Ledyard & Milburn