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 : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27735)	8/18/1999 3:35:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Let me state for the record that yes, I am not a huge fan of MSFT. It's not that I don't like their success, or I envy it. I just don't like some of the things they do (or have done). Now, the notion of "innocent before being guilty" makes for nice rhetoric but somehow I don't believe it to be as cut and dry as you state. Every Grand Jury ever convined in the history of the US always has one thought pass through it's collective mind -- we must be here for a reason and their must be something wrong of the government has taken the time to present this stuff. Prosecutors know they can't waste time or energy on stuff that won't pass the "grade" so to speak. They do this not because they are lazy but because it can be used as evidence to prove innocence or overzealous prosecution. All of which can be later used at an appeal hearing. It also affects juries if prosecutors try 2 or 3 or 4 times to get a trail against someone. Juries don't like to hear that kind of stuff, it prejudices them against the state's case. For these reasons, prosecutors are very careful to be sure they have something (unless you discount for total corruption and they both of our opinions are moot). If you don't believe me, just ask some defense attorneys, I'm sure they can better explain this. I do agree with you about some bad choices/moves. This can explain probably 60% of MSFT's success. But come on, you expect me to believe ALL of MSFT's success is completely hinged on people making bad choices/moves and some good marketing? Do I look that silly? There have been MANY documented instances of unethical (and even immoral) plays by MSFT in helping themselves along their path of success. Remember the DR-DOS incompatibility error messages? That was what??? Some programmer was just kidding right.... As for AOL, you miss the point on why people are AOL members. It's not about the access, it's about the community. Unless you like, you can't understand that aspect of it. The uniformity of the content, the ease of use, the ability to interact with many people in a seamless fashion all make AOL different from any other ISP. MANY AOL members can't wait to access their favorite AOL content via cable/DSL or any other hi-bandwidth alternative. Heck, with outside access, AOL is nearly 55% cheaper ($9.95 per month as opposed to $21.95) for me. Get faster access to my favorite stuff and save 55% -- sign me up! As for that MSFT employee sending that note....you make the assumption that the employee (if there really is one) was acting on their own and that MSFT is telling the truth. Sounds to me like a very convenient excuse - some one did it, we don't know who but it wasn't really from us. Sorry.... oh yeah by the way, did you read that note, its true. Please, re-read the article. MSFT first denies doing it on purpose then comes up with a lame excuse and then asks you to look at the substance of the note and believe it as truth. Tricky stuff if you ask me. As for what AOL is doing blockint out MSFT let see -- MSFT HACKED into AOL's backend systems to allow access into the Instant Messanger system for their client. Sounds like something most people go to court for. Why couldn't they just work out a deal with AOL for access like everyone else? Peter J Strifas

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27735)	8/18/1999 4:32:00 PM
From: Paul Fiondella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Hi Scott Today was my first cablemodem day. They apparently crashed the server on my node doing "testing" around 11 AM. Turn around time was about four hours. They use the high and low frequencies for the data signal with the video in the center. The FCC was apparently around and they had to prove that they were not interfering with the video signal or something like that so they crashed the server and nobody noticed. Raised the issue of digitalme with one of the executives at the cable company. Much to talk about here..... =============== Watching NOVL --- Oh man those MMs are out to keep the stock as close to 25 as they can on low volume. Looking forward to tomorrows conference call.

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27735)	8/18/1999 8:16:00 PM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

Scott, You make for a very aggressive devil's advocate but unfortunately I have to disagree with many of your statements. By the way - you seem to have become pretty emotional yourself on this topic. This is unusual for you as you normally are pretty cool-headed. But THANKS for the stimulating (poking at logic) conversation. It wakes this board up a bit. Why do you think I sit and post on the MSFT board soooo much? So lets get into your logic Scott.... (PS just for the real dumb ones out there that need to be told - everything on this posting - is based on my personal opinions - as is the case on all the other posts of mine) First: As it should be. Just as Microsoft should be worried about Novell closing the door on Active Directory and controlling the distributed naming, and security, of all networked devices. You are functionally correct BUT MSFT's fear of NOVL is not even close to the same magnitude of a small single industry company standing under the foot of an elephant who can use its HUGE wealth and shier influence alone to destroy its competitor. This has nothing to do with competition fears anymore. So the dispute on your comment is that you failed to mention the magnitude of worry for a company like AOL vs a company like MSFT. In fact, this point brings me right a later point you made in repsonse to me... I don't agree that tightly controlled committee work is the way to go ... It is this grouping of industry players that puts enough size against MSFT so that instead of an elephant trying to step on an ant, its now an elephant trying to step on another elephant. This raises the bar of worry magnitude for MSFT - a magnitude that they dont have against that one little ant (in this case AOL - in the last case Netscape - in the previous case Caldera, Stac, etc. etc. etc.). Ohh, by the way, these conrolled committees as you called them - they are the same groups that give you and Frederick that Open Source, Open Standards, and "Unlocking" in the industry that you feel is the "winning" strategy. I agree with you 200% that open or industry agreed-to standards are in the best interests of the entire industry and the end-consumer! But how do you feel your vision is going to happen if MSFT's overwhelming power in the industry can dictate these standards without credible challenge? These committees are manditory for your successful vision to happen - otherwise the standards will be dictate and pushed by MSFT. And I hope you see from history that MSFT's decision on setting these standards have motives that are almost always in the interests of their "Take over the world" goal and not for the good of the industry. Next: Regarding the Innocent till proven Guilty issue you brought up. In a court of law - I would agree that the term is correct, but this is not a case of whether MSFT did or didn't perform illegal acts. MSFT clearly put their "near-zero" marketshare browser into their obviously Desktop OS monopoly product (please dont make a silly statement now that their Desktop OS is not deemed a monopoly - that would be a laugher for the whole board Scott) and made it a free and conveniently available product. From that point on, Netscape's marketshare plumeted! Exactly how how does NSCP respond to this? MSFT's browser - until recently - wasnt even on par to NSCP's. So product superiority was not the reason for NSCP's marketshare loss. I dont give a hoot what the outcome of the DOJ trial is Scott, that action alone was a clear violation of Anti-trust laws. If MSFT's tons of lawyer money and political pressure somehow gets them an innocent verdict means squat! They were guilty in much of the industry's eyes. So I hold to my statement based on this logic - MSFT did perform illegal acts IMO - the question is, will they get away with it? So with that said, explain this statement of yours... but in general I don't agree with many of the silly arguments that I've heard. I'm not convinced that Microsoft has done much more than to capitalize on the errors of their competitors. Exactly what errors did NSCP do when MSFT capitalized on its desktop monoploy to overtake marketshare in an unrelated technology? What mistake did this small up-start company make? While your at it, explain the other dead corpes or near dead victims that MSFT has left behind because MSFT pulled purely immoral and unethical practices on them by weilding their desktop monopoly. These same practices WOULD NOT have been successful without MSFT's monopoly Scott. Be honest with yourself on this one. You talk about MSFT taking advantage of other company's mistakes. Well, what about MSFT's mistake of missing the whole Internet play and browser market? I will put it to you that MSFT is successful now dispite its countless mistakes simply because of its shier size. It can decide almost at will when to get into something and they can easily correct their countless fumbles because of their mass. Exactly how many companies in the industry can have one of their critical & fundamental products be delayed by YEARS and still have this huge fumble not fatally hurt their company's future? Answer me that Scott. NEXT: The employee posting as a fake consultant. Let me ask you this Scott. You come from NOVL... if Eric Schmidt and NOVL were to find out in public that one of their employees pulled this stunt, would you think that he/she would be employed by NOVL for much longer. I can say with little doubt that IBM would have fired him. It was an unethical act and not one that a company with any image to uphold would tolerate. I wonder if MSFT fired this employee? From everything I have heard from MSFT, they seem to be conditioanlly defending this person and excusing his actions. I stand corrected if MSFT has fired him, but I would be surprised. I dont care if MSFT didnt publicly admit to encouraging him or if they even were involved in the act in any way - the point is that the employees learned what actions their employer has performed in the past to "win at any cost" and therefore, MSFT was involved even though they might not have even known about it. Get my point? The MSFT culture had encouraged this act. WHEW!!! I am getting sores on my fingers so I will stop here. I think I gave you more than enough to chew on Scott. :))))) thanks again for the stimulating response and for getting th blood moving on this board. Its always a pleasure Big Guy! Cheers! Toy

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27735)	8/18/1999 11:28:00 PM
From: Frederick Smart	Respond to of 42771

The Future..... >>I don't agree that tightly controlled committee work is the way to go ... the open source and "unlocking", I believe, will be the way things will be won.>> The future will go to those who give off the most positive energy: - access to data - no hooks - no restrictions - freedom to choose - open connectivity - empowered, intelligent individual choice Companies today have had it easy. Wait till "the individual" get's access to data they once considered "theirs". It will be a whole NEW ball game. FREEDOM will be the fire, the energy, the direction of the "next wave". Even Novell will have to "get with it" or be tossed aside by these powerful forces ahead. What a GREAT time to be alive! Peace. GO!!!