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: Gerald Walls who wrote (31987)	11/5/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: Jim Lamb	Respond to of 74651

Judge seeks final briefings on law by Jan. 31, 2000 SEATTLE, Nov 5 (Reuters) - The federal judge overseeing the government antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news) has asked both sides to file final briefings on law by Jan. 31, 2000, a spokesman for the software giant said. However Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson specifically asked the two sides to exclude from their briefings any comments on potential remedies or injunctive relief. Under the schedule laid out in a brief order issued by Jackson, the government's briefing on issues of law is due Dec. 6, with Microsoft's responsive briefing due Jan. 17. The government would get a chance to file a response by Jan. 24, with Microsoft's final response due Jan. 31. However, Jackson ordered that the briefings on the law ``shall not address the subject of remedy or injunctive relief, as to which the court will require a special briefing if needed.' Jackson has not yet announced whether he will hear oral arguments in the next phase of the trial, said Bill Neukom, Microsoft senior vice president for legal affairs. ``We would just as soon have oral arguments,' he said. Neukom said he expected the two sides to meet with the judge soon to sort out the procedure. Neukom also said in a conference call with analysts and reporters that there was ``a possibility' Microsoft could appeal any ruling on liability by Jackson before any remedies are ordered. ``There is some logic to think it's not wise to use the court's resources on relief until you have the final decision on liability, and that decision we all know is not going to happen until after appellate review,' Neukom said. However, he said it also was possible Microsoft would not get a chance to appeal until after a remedy is ordered. In that case Microsoft would ask the appellate court to delay imposition of the remedy until after the appeal is decided. He estimated the federal appeals process would take ``at least a year,' even on an expedited basis, with an appeal by either side to the Supreme Court possible after that.

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (31987)	11/5/1999 9:50:00 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

What do they want to get? A sort of extra tax paid by Microsoft, which delivers a sizable tax bill every year? What happens if MSFT for one simply decides not to show taxable earnings any more? Someone shot himself into his knee and has no clue right now. Who would slaught the hen which lays golden eggs?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (31987)	11/5/1999 11:03:00 PM
From: J. P.	Respond to of 74651

It sounds like the judge's ruling is a lot of flash and no substance, to wit: This doesn't smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's demands for a corporate breakup. Count that as a Microsoft win. This doesn't smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's demand to peel Internet Explorer out of the current version, let alone next year's version, of the Windows operating system. Count that as a Microsoft win. This doesn't smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's substantial financial penalties. Count that as a Microsoft win. This does smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's proposed remedy of imposing an IBM (IBM:NYSE)-like consent decree: Microsoft can't do this anymore, or this, or this. Count that as a Microsoft win. thestreet.com

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (31987)	11/6/1999 7:19:00 AM
From: Offshore	Respond to of 74651

Jim Seymor's comments are Excellent But defendants don't "win" antitrust cases in the conventional sense of the word, just as defendants in criminal trials aren't found "innocent," only "not guilty." In antitrust, you win by limiting the scope of the loss. By that test: -o- This doesn't smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's demands for a corporate breakup. Count that as a Microsoft win. -o- This doesn't smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's demand to peel Internet Explorer out of the current version, let alone next year's version, of the Windows operating system. Count that as a Microsoft win. -o- This doesn't smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's substantial financial penalties. Count that as a Microsoft win. -o- This does smell to me like a finding that is going to lead to a judge's proposed remedy of imposing an IBM (IBM:NYSE)-like consent decree: Microsoft can't do this anymore, or this, or this. Count that as a Microsoft win. Huh? Microsoft wins if forced to sign a consent decree? You bet. Because like the long-lasting IBM decree, a 40-year war that ended only in May 1997 and was supposed to level the field for other mainframe makers, a consent decree won't have that much effect. It'll be easy for Microsoft to re-game the situation, to find ways to work around the bans.