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 (27738)	8/18/1999 6:54:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

A couple of quick notes-- I spent a lot of time on the MSFT. vs NSCP board, which used to have very interesting legal analysis by a lawyer who rarely posts anymore. It is actually "innocent until proven guilty" which in my eyes was more the statement of "Wait until we hear the outcome of the trial ... and the results still don't 'prove' anything." The presumption of innocence only refers to criminal trials where a defendents liberty or very life is at stake. Civil cases go by "which is more likely, did they or didn't they" type reasoning. And even in criminal trials, we are free to have our own opinions about the guilt or innocence of a defendant and there is no moral presumption enforced on us either way by our legal system. One legal concept is known as the 'guilty conscience.' If someone lies about their deeds in a courtroom, the assumption is that they themselves believe that their deeds were immoral or illegal. Like many legal concepts, this is a reasonable inference of human behavior. Many of the Microsoft employees who testified in the courtroom were shown to have seriously fudged the truth in their testimony. Thus, if they thought they did something naughty, who are we to disagree? Going further in this direction, there are at least two ways to defend yourself in a civil action. One is to deny that you did what you were accused of. The other is to agree that you did what you were accused of, but deny that it is illegal. Notice that these two things are contradictory. Bart Simpson defenses, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, someone else did it" simply are not credible. Once Microsoft chose to deny, for example, that they tried to coerce Netscape into dividing up the market (illegal even without a monopoly), they can't say "well, we did but there was nothing wrong with it." Since their point men on that meeting were thoroughly discredited in court, well, they probably did do it. And if they are unwilling to defend their actions by testifying truthfully, why should we defend them? Finally, Bill Gates gave a bad performance not because he spoke poorly, wore the wrong shirt, or glared at the lawyers. He gave a bad performance because he pretended not to know anything and lied about what he did admit knowing, contradicting his own emails quite often. Can you imagine, Scott, how you would feel about Novell were Eric Schmidt shown to be a crude liar? Proof of course, is an impossible construct in the real world for most anything besides math, and even then we assume some fundamentals of set theory. The question is how much evidence do I need to convince you of a certain threshold likeliness.

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27738)	8/18/1999 10:57:00 PM
From: Pruguy	Respond to of 42771

Hi Scott: Have to say here, this is a great debate between you and PJ....I am in about 80% agreement with PJ Only comment I can add here is that I believe AOL that the majority of their CURRENT customers are not bandwith sensitive. As that changes I really don't think the 9.95/mo makes a hill of beans difference. As a DSL subscriber for the last 8 months, personally, it took me less than 3 seconds to decide to pay the monthly fee to keep my AOL on top of the 40/mo charge. I think that will be true of most AOL subscribers who want broadband, they are willing to pay for it....For those that aren't willing to pay the extra 9.95/mo, the 40/mo will probably be what controls their decision more than the speed

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27738)	8/18/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: Pruguy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

(P.P.S. Microsoft made a wonderful move today ... they are going the open route ... news.com ) Scott: this is nothing Are you sure you work for novl....you seem a little biased here TOWARD msft. This isn't a move toward open standards, just another msft tactic....who are you kidding?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (27738)	8/18/1999 11:45:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Hello Scott, Emotion is good :) Without it we are what? Robots? I don't excuse my dislike for what MSFT has come to be. But if having a deep passion for or against something does not make someone silly, unless it goes against your own opinion and it's convenient to do so :) That doesn't mean I condone other companies who practice like behaviors only in this case, it does seem to me that AOL has every right to defend itself (and its product) in the same vigor that MSFT finds to take it away from them. If you are convinced someone is innocent, no amount of evidence can convince you contrary and sure the same goes for me. I just don't buy MSFT being completely innocent and just a great company who really knows how to do business (which I don't argue they don't do well). Please don't get me wrong, I don't think them as the Dark Evil Empire, it's just they do a great impersonation sometimes. Perhaps its just the way I react to bullies (I don't mean you). If you want to psycho-analyze this for us on this forum that's ok. I don't mind. In fact, I don't mind being a little silly with my emotion either :) Sooner rather than later MSFT is going to face an issue that will either make or break their future..their products will have to live up to the marketing hype 100%. I don't know about you but I couldn't see trusting my car's computer to software that "Blue Screens" or needs a service pack to run. For MSFT to have success in that type of market, their software will have to work and earn it. Hell, anyone will have to follow that tall order though! Marketing hype won't win it there (where's my bicycle??). And believe me, I'm not rooting for them to lose either. Just live up to it. I can respect that. Right now I don't believe they live up to anything they say or do. Then again, many companies don't but they don't walk around acting like they do and we (the end user) are just clueless idiots. How can I say that? Well, perhaps its just me but do more and more companies these days have "war stories" about their dealings with MSFT than those who don't. I wish I could take the time and present a case for you but even then I somehow think that wouldn't do :) I'm just not that good sorry. My emotions would probably get in the way :) [Damn, they they go again, always getting in the way] Sure it's good business to "take no prisoners" I can't deny or refute that. I'm sure that is the basis of your feeling about MSFT right, they can't be this successful with out being that good. Maybe they are but I don't believe. With all the "evidence" of unethical tactics I just feel there's too much SMOKE for there not to be a fire. True AOL has "open source" code that you can obtain but there is some measure of conduct. But let me get this straight there is a totally free download without any license agreement or guideline as to what can be done with that software? Is that what you are trying to tell us? Kewl. I didn't know that. I was under the impression that obtaining this type of code generally has some "responsibility" attached to it. [what am I thinking, why would ANYONE do something like that...you know, they deserve what they are getting]. Everyone else generally has something in place to protect their product even MSFT. But I digress, we were talking about my emotions right??? Damn. Oh yeah, my emotions - yup they do get in a stir because I'd just rather not listen to MSFT complain when someone plays by their rules (if that's what you're telling me AOL did). I mean that's what you are saying right? AOL created an inconvinence for MSFT by blocking MSFT's client - somehow I don't think it compares to placing fake code into a beta product to the detriment of a competing product. You state: <<I'm not sure that I get your point here. Are you saying that only Microsoft practices this type of "inconvience"? How is this different from AOL breaking Microsoft's Messenger product? >> Oh, I get it, everyone speeds so it's ok to speed right. Sure. But, the speed limit is 55 and I'm doing 70, but you're doing 100 - our guilt is equal but in a court of law guess who gets the larger fine? The larger fine means what? more guilt? Hmmmm...let me check my emotional pulse... You can't compare the 2 acts out of context and say they are the same. That's like saying someone guilty of stealing pantyhose at WalMart is equally as bad as say a murderer? <<Please ... lets not get caught up in silly emotional responses. Your math makes no sense at all. I'm afraid that you forgot to mention the $39.95 Cable Modem fees ... or the DSL fees. The numbers you quote are correct, but I have to ADD the $9.95 to my new high-speed access charges. After I had posted I was driving to lunch and was floored when I heard the new TCI Cable Modem promo on the radio ... here in Salt Lake City! TCI is offering to convert you, and then pay your AOL fees till January ... at which point you will have to make the decision ... do you pay the extra $9.95/month >> I didn't forget to add those other charges. You stated that people will gladly pay more for the high speed internet access which doesn't send you directly to AOL. And that because of that AOL will lose customers. I disagree. I feel that these people will say "So what's another $9.95 per month to have something I want?" Ever wonder WHY TCI is offering AOL for free until January....because they KNOW that people will not pay just for the ACCESS! CONTENT is what keeps you online. See, people are conditioned by the telephone and the TV - to them, the internet and accessing it should be universally easier than it has been. It should be a given, whenever I want it, click and I get it. Has nothing to do with why I use AOL. That was the past. Even AOL saw this and when they purchased CompuServe the deal included AOL selling off their dial-up network. They don't OWN the access points anymore, they haven't OWN that network for almost 2 years now so there's no TIE INTO AOL to keep their members from going to other means of access. Why did they do this? CONTENT IS KING! If there was no need for high speed access to download audio/video and whatever else may come up, people will NOT pay for it. Why do you think ISDN languished for some many years until the WWW came along. Then suddenly high speed access became fashionable and ISDN got a breath of life until someone came up with an alternative! I may not be as well schooled as you in the social habits of people but I do know this (and Bill Gates got this one SOOOO right it makes me almost like him) MAKE PEOPLE THINK THEY NEED IT AND THEY WILL BUY IT. ONCE THEY REALIZE THEY LIKE IT, YOU HAVE A CUSTOMER for LIFE. I don't see $9.95 being the roadblock you think it is. <<You want to indicate a conspiracy of some sorts ... but I will disagree and argue that they have some very smart people at Microsoft that shouldn't be underestimated. Your comments make them sound stupid and I believe that's a bad thing to believe.>> Perhaps its MSFT that believes WE are the stupid ones. I don't doubt there are some VERY sharp people at MSFT and I do believe their good work is what keeps that company moving along. But take a look at the "brain drain" at MSFT and you will see the people who are responsible for the very successes that make MSFT such a powerhouse have been leaving slowly but surely. [except Gates and Ballmer of course]. Also, there have been several stories of journalist pressed at deadline who have "picked" a story which panned most products and raved a MSFT product. It's been written about in a book too (Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the Inside by Jennifer Edstrom, Marlin Eller). MSFT manipulates more than its fair share of the press it gets, conspiracy on my part? Did you know that several Ziff-Davis magazines have been accused of this which prompted them to actually deny the charges in editorials? This was a response from readers emails and letters. [I'll do some searching for you tomorrow :) Right now I'm dialed into AOL and it's killig me.] Yeah, I'm a conspiracy buff, I can't help it you know, it feeds my emotional side well :) <<Because they like to play to win ... not to draw. That's the brutal reality of the business world. Some people just weren't made for it ...>> Ok. Great. Good business school RAH RAH stuff, I like that :) Can we just not have the crying and whining when someone fights back. At least then I can keep my emotions in check and not go off making you laugh off your perch :) Please don't under-estimate Steve Case at AOL and some of the smart people they have working there. I'm sure they didn't get to be where they are by sheer luck. He's made some great moves even courting the enemy at one point. AOL gets the big picture of where this internet wave is going and they have a very good piece of that market. MSFT will do everything it can to get it's hands on it but I don't think it will be as easy as posting some messages on a bulletin board to kill OS/2 or trick IBM into believing that MSFT was going to support OS/2. Or allowing some small company with a great idea to develop that idea it into a viable product only to incorporate a very close "clone" into their OS a few years later. My emotion also gets stirred by people who defend MSFT by belittling others because they see this behemoth as the Golden Goose. Damn the torpedos full speed ahead! Then again, maybe I just need to increase my prozac :) Have a good laugh Scott :) PJ Strifas