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: Paul Fiondella who wrote (28812)	11/6/1999 11:26:00 AM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

It should be considered that the OS is now a commodity on a PC much like a Keyboard/mouse or any other device which is necessary for the PC to function. Publish the source code, the driver interfaces, the low level functionality that Windows provides the PC in terms of managing the hardware that consitutes the system. Allow MSFT the upper layers of the OS - the GUI, the utilities, system monitors etc it has developed for Windows. Make the APIs and libraries open for ANY company to enter and INNOVATE! I remember PCTools and a few other companies who had some great utilities and system tools (remember Norton Commander?). Let's see some startup companies create a new workplace on the PC - extend the OS's upper layers. Windows has done a great thing - it created a unified environment for application development. I applaude the great "side effect" of Gates & Co's drive to obliterate everyone in their sights. This was never intended (IMHO) as the prime objective of the Redmond Gang but I'll take it. Now that they have proved it to be a necessary component - it should be opened to the world. This is where the ruling will have "teeth". They can't OWN the "bottleneck" (which in this case is the OS) to over 100 million computers and do as they please. MSFT can stay a monopoly for all I care - just please someone watch over them to play by the rules created for monopolies. This is all I ask - if opening the source code is one way to do this - then so be it. Either way, this is a great day for Caldera :) They may win the "bigger" lawsuit IMHO. Peter J Strifas

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (28812)	11/7/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: DJBEINO	Respond to of 42771

Microsoft Ruling May Lead to Severe Remedies, Including Breakup of Company By James Rowley Washington, Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- A judge's finding that Microsoft Corp. engaged in extensive misconduct to protect its monopoly will prompt consideration of severe remedies that could include breaking up the company, antitrust enforcers say. Now that U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has set the stage for a ruling early next year that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the U.S. Justice Department and 19 states face the task of crafting proposed sanctions. ''The findings are a compelling and powerful statement of serious and far-reaching anti-competitive abuses which should justify serious and far-reaching remedies and we will be considering very closely how far remedies ought to go,'' said Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general. By finding that Microsoft doesn't shrink from using ''its prodigious market power and immense profits'' to thwart competition, Jackson left the company with little room to maneuver in a possible appeal and weakened its bargaining position in any settlement talks with the government, legal experts said. The Justice Department ''will be emboldened by this in terms of the kind of settlement they will be willing to take,'' said Washington antitrust attorney Marc Schildkraut, a former U.S. Federal Trade Commission official who led an investigation of Microsoft in the early 1990s. 'It's Devastating' ''It's devastating. Almost any remedy would be plausible under this set of facts,'' including forcing Microsoft to license its Windows operating system to competitors or breaking up the company, said Schildkraut. Microsoft shares, which have more than doubled since the company was first sued in May 1998, fell after Jackson's evening opinion was announced. The stock dropped 4 1/2 to 87 1/16 in after-hours trading yesterday. By contrast, it has risen 32 percent this year and has been the fourth-best performer on the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the past 12 months as investors shrugged off the legal proceedings. ''We certainly think that it's premature to discuss remedies, but under no circumstances would it be good for consumers or positive to the economy to talk about breaking up one of America's great companies,'' said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said. Immediate Aftermath Chairman Bill Gates, in the immediate aftermath of Friday's opinion by Jackson, suggested the company was prepared for a long fight. If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, a resolution could come more than two years from now. Antitrust enforcers declined to discuss the specifics of remedies under consideration. A. Douglas Melamed, the Justice Department's No. 2 antitrust enforcer, said the government has long been studying remedies based on its understanding of the ''pattern of behavior.'' ''We always thought there was a problem here and it appears the judge agrees with that,'' Melamed said. ''We have to think hard about serious remedies.'' Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the states have discussed ''a wide range of remedies'' including ''structural remedies.'' Structural Sanction One structural sanction would be breaking up Microsoft into a company that makes an operating system and another that produces other software applications. Another one would be to force a licensing of Windows to competitors. ''The decision does not cause us to scale that discussion back in any way,'' Miller said. Crafting a remedy is difficult, experts say. A court order directing Microsoft to license the Windows operating system to several competitors would undermine the universal standard for personal computers and lead to incompatibilities, they say. Splitting up Microsoft wouldn't eliminate the company's power over the market, said Schildkraut. ''There are pros and cons to every proposed remedy,'' added Blumenthal. ''The real core question is what benefits consumers most, both short and long run.'' Legal Arguments In the meantime, Microsoft's lawyers will be devising legal arguments to challenge Jackson's factual findings and set the stage for an appeal. Legal experts said Jackson's finding that bundling Internet Explorer Web browsing software into the Windows operating system hurt consumers is the most vulnerable to reversal on appeal. In June 1998, a federal appeals court in Washington lifted an injunction Jackson issued ordering Microsoft to give computer makers the choice of installing a version of Windows 95 without Internet Explorer. The appeals court held that the combination of Windows 95 and Internet Explorer provided benefits to consumers, a test that would likely be applied to the current case. Microsoft will likely wage a ''frontal assault'' on Jackson's finding that Internet Explorer and Windows are separate products, said Robert Litan, a former Justice Department antitrust enforcer who directs legal studies at the Brookings Institution. Jackson's finding reverses the appeals court's presumption that, if it is preferred by some consumers, the combination is legal. Operating System Under that standard, ''all Microsoft has do to in order to show they are one product is to show that some consumers like the operating system and the browser together,'' Litan said. ''Jackson takes the reverse (position) that there are consumers who don't like it, therefore . . . that is enough to make them separate'' products that were illegally tied together, he said. Microsoft's Cullinan declined to discuss what legal arguments the company will advance in a legal brief due Jan. 17. Jackson ordered the government to file its proposed conclusions of law on Dec. 6. The judge's order set the stage for a final ruling after Feb. 1. More Consistent Jackson's findings were ''more consistent with the government's claim than Microsoft's,'' Microsoft General Counsel William Neukom conceded. ''But that doesn't determine where he will (rule) on the law. We think that the law is very much on our side.'' If Jackson ultimately rules Microsoft broke the law, his factual findings will make it more difficult for the appeals court -- dominated by conservative Republicans appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush -- to reverse his decision. Appeals courts cannot overturn a judge's factual rulings unless they find them ''clearly erroneous.'' That standard is ''very deferential'' to trial judges, said William Kovacic, an antitrust expert at George Washington University's law school.

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (28812)	11/7/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

Hello Paul, > Publish the source code ;-) > Now that Jackson has brought the US FEderal Court system into the > 20th Century (of course the Appeals Court could send it back into > the 19th!) maybe it is time to consider the remedies. I would agree that the appeals process is going to be interesting. Again, the articles that I saw indicated the judicial system taking the next one and a half to two years to get it through appeals ... that's eons in computer years. I'm starting to think that Microsoft is going to morph into something else before the appeals end ... very much like IBM did when it was being pursued ... > Monetary damages to Netscape are useless as a consumer remedy. The > only thing that will increase competition is forcing MSFT to > relinquish its hold on the desktop. That means forcing MSFT to > publish its Windows source code and license that code to others at > a nominal cost. That would permit a reentry into the OS market of > numerous companies. I'm curious what you think, specifically, are the advantages and outcomes of such a move? What are the specific, measurable, benefits of such an action? Is it simply to remove their income stream? Or that potentially fragmenting Windows into numerous incompatible version would be good for consumers? I'm really trying to explore the outcome of such a move ... > Some of you may recall that back in the Win3.1 days a product > called PCTools was available. It substituted itself for for the > Windows program manager and gave the GUI an entirely different and > far more user friendly interface than Windows did while running all > Windows programs. That effort was crushed and MSFT took many of > those features into Win95. But this capability is still alive and well! There are numerous other desktops and UIs that can be downloaded and used. I have used a couple of these, on and off, over the last couple of years. I would have to agree that there isn't much money in it ... but that's not the argument here. If you want a new UI on Windows, head to customize.org and grab a copy of WindowBlinds, LiteStep, NextStart ... or go buy a copy of the desktop from Mijenix ... they have one. I think that in reality we are looking at market dynamics ... the default UI that Microsoft provides has improved to the point where there in no longer a market for alternative UIs ... > Novell is bound to benefit from this ruling, both in its stock > price and business prospects. Yes ... if they don't trip over themselves while trying! ;-) Scott C. Lemon