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: jmac who wrote (31714)	11/5/1999 12:40:00 PM
From: Keith Fauci	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Is anyone here interested in the Expedia spin off from Microsoft? How do you think it will do?

To: jmac who wrote (31714)	11/5/1999 1:00:00 PM
From: taxman	Respond to of 74651

Washington, Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The judge in the government's landmark antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. is likely to issue his first definitive conclusions today on whether the software giant has a monopoly and illegally defends it, analysts said. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has been preparing findings of fact on whether the world's No. 1 software company controls the market for personal computer operating software and curbs competition to preserve that dominance. Two weeks ago, he said he would announce a decision on a Friday -- but not which Friday -- at 6:30 p.m. Washington time. Jackson may stop short of deciding whether Microsoft has a monopoly because that is partly a legal question, not a purely factual one, experts said. Still, his opinion will be the first concrete statement of Jackson's thoughts about the case. ``Short of his addressing the ultimate questions, he will say a number of things that provide powerful hints about where he is going,' said William Kovacic, an antitrust expert at George Washington University's law school. Analysts said they expect the findings today, noting that the court has made preparations for distributing the opinions to the press and public. Numerous legal and computer industry specialists alerted the news media they would be available to comment on the decision. Jackson heard 76 days of testimony and was given thousands of pages of documents, including pretrial depositions and legal briefs. In September, he heard a day of oral arguments from lawyers for Microsoft, and the U.S. Justice Department and 19 states that sued the company. The judge's decision on whether Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act isn't likely until early next year after both sides file extensive written material exploring the legal issues. There also could be further oral arguments in court. A Year Later Jackson's findings come a little more than a year after he began hearing testimony from company officials, economists and computer scientists in a federal courthouse in Washington. Although Jackson signaled agreement with government lawyers on certain points, his written decision would be his first ruling on the central issues in the case. In a four-count complaint, the government accuses Microsoft of illegally maintaining its operating system dominance, trying to monopolize the market for Internet browsers, ``tying' its Internet Explorer browser to Windows to ensure consumers use Explorer and reaching exclusive agreements with computer makers and Internet Service providers to box out competitors. At trial, the Justice Department and state attorneys presented evidence that Microsoft threatened computer makers such as International Business Machines Corp. with higher software prices if it continued to install Netscape Communications Corp.'s browser or other competing software on its machines. In addition, the government said Microsoft illegally forces PC makers to accept licensing restrictions that exclude competitors. Antitrust enforcers also alleged that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates pressured Intel Corp. not to make competing software. Product Improvement Cited Microsoft portrayed itself as a company that constantly enhances consumer choice by improving its products. The company said its responses to rivals were hard-nosed competition, not anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft disputed the claim that it had hampered Netscape's ability to distribute its Navigator browser, saying Netscape is free to disseminate its product through computer makers and the Internet. The company also sought to refute the government's contention that it has a monopoly. Microsoft lawyers pointed to other types of software that can serve as the ``platform' to run applications. U.S. and state antitrust enforcers have been considering a series of remedies, ranging from forcing Microsoft to license the Windows operating system to several competitors to breaking up the software giant into several parts. Investors have shrugged off the possibility that Microsoft could lose the case and face harsh sanctions. The value of Microsoft's stock has more than doubled since May 18, 1998 when the lawsuit was filed in federal court. Microsoft's shares fell 1/2 to 91 1/4 in morning trading today. ¸1999 Bloomberg L.P. regards