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 (31802)	11/5/1999 7:09:00 PM
From: Blue Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

MSFT a monopoly. Was that Judge Sherlock who made the ruling? BLUE

To: jmac who wrote (31802)	11/5/1999 7:09:00 PM
From: taxman	Respond to of 74651

Washington, Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. has a monopoly for personal computer operating systems and has used this power to preserve its market domination, the judge in the company's antitrust trial ruled. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson stopped short of deciding whether the world's largest software company acted illegally, though his preliminary findings of fact in the landmark case sent a strong signal he ultimately will find Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. ``Microsoft has demonstrated it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products,' Jackson said. Legal experts have predicted such a finding would prompt Microsoft to seek settlement talks with lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department and 19 states. A settlement would help Microsoft avoid harsh remedies and multiple lawsuits by competitors seeking damages. Jackson concluded that because there is no significant commercial alternative to the company's Windows operating system, which powers more than 95 percent of the world's PCs, Microsoft is free to set prices without regard to what its rivals charge. The judge must now decide whether the government has proven that the software giant violated the law by repelling challenges to its market dominance. If the judge decides Microsoft illegally tried to preserve its Windows monopoly, he would consider what sanctions to impose on the company to prevent abuses in the future. Microsoft's shares fell 3/16 to 91 9/16 on the Nasdaq Composite Index before Jackson released his opinion. Long Trial 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 during the 76 days of testimony, today's decision marks 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' 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 maker International Business Machines Corp. with higher software prices if it continued to install Netscape's browser or other competing software like 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. And an Apple Computer Inc. executive testified that Microsoft threatened to stop supplying Windows programs that run on Apple's Mac operating system and sabotaged multimedia software. The company ``engaged in a broad pattern of unlawful conduct with the purpose and effect of thwarting emerging threats to its powerful and well-entrenched operating system monopoly,' the Justice Department said in court papers. Tough Competition Microsoft portrayed itself as a company that constantly enhances consumer choice by improving its products. The company said its responses to Apple, Intel and Netscape were hard-nosed competition, not illegal behavior. ``The government seeks to portray every action taken by Microsoft to advance its business interests as predatory,' Microsoft lawyer John Warden said during arguments before Jackson in September. 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. ``The company faces a wide range of platform competitors, including AOL, Sun (Microsystems Inc.), Linux, Apple, non-PC devices and the Internet itself,' Microsoft argued. Possible Sanctions 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. 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 landmark lawsuit was filed in federal court. ¸1999 Bloomberg L.P.

To: jmac who wrote (31802)	11/5/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

The question is: Is Microsoft fairly priced at current levels? To answer this question, one must consider what the price of Microsoft would be if this case had never began. I think that without this case, Microsoft stock would be somewhat higher. Given this, we must decide if the current discount adequately compensates for the risks to investors this case represents. I don't know if these risks are fully priced, but we all know uncertainty is very highly priced by the market, and any reduction of it should be viewed as positive. As far as the quick decision to sell tonight, I think of the old say "Act in haste; repent at leisure." when I view the action. Cheers, PW. P.S. I guess Reno's happy about deflecting some Waco heat.

To: jmac who wrote (31802)	11/5/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Jean M. Gauthier	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 74651

Total disaster for Microsoft.... They had the most incompetent case I have ever seen, with their keystone cops legal team. The ruling is so one-sided, the government won on ALL counts There is nothing for MSFT to fight back with, against that ass#$%^ Klein and his socialistic clintonistas. I am a shareowner, obviously, but if I was not, I still think this is a disaster for America. 1- Now Europe will go after MSFT 2- Already China dislikes MSFT, it's now open season 3- This is the biggest investment for most poeple mutual funds, and now everyone will feel the pain. 4- How can Clinton feel good about this ? I hope the american electorate makes his party pay. 5- Why could Dole not win, this is the clintonistas at work I am very disappointed, I am NOT selling, but my LEAPS now are going to lose time value, and this will be dead money for at least 6 months.. What do you guys think ? take care Jean