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: J. P. who wrote (32168)	11/6/1999 8:13:00 AM
From: Catcher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

JP i too was physically repulsed by reno & that self-congratulatory flake...particularly when he said something about this being something like "a great day for american people". also didn't like innuendo aimed at mr gates when he said something to effect that "in this country NO INDIVIDUAL or company can..." genuine repulsion for what used to be called "my government". they are self-serving beaurocrats...holding us back. then there's the judge. one glance at him strolling from the courthouse tells you he was in way over his head. his "outbursts" during the trial belied his ignorance...let alone his comments & observations. a sad day for our country

To: J. P. who wrote (32168)	11/6/1999 8:16:00 AM
From: t2	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 74651

Court Finding Puts Pressure on Microsoft to Settle. This is an article that explains the merits of settlement. Maybe that was Jackson's reason for taking such a harsh stance--force a settlement favorable to the government's position. dailynews.yahoo.com Saturday November 6 6:53 AM ET Court Finding Puts Pressure On Microsoft To Settle WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge's finding that Microsoft Corp (Nasdaq:MSFT - news). used its monopoly power to punish competitors puts new pressure on the software giant to settle the government's antitrust case or face the possibility of a spate of damage lawsuits, experts said. The finding of fact issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said Microsoft had a monopoly in operating system software for personal computers and used its power to punish competitors and harm consumers. The finding of fact, which endorsed nearly all the U.S. government's allegations of anticompetitive practices against Microsoft, will be used as a basis for determining whether the software juggernaut broke the law. If Jackson finds Microsoft broke the law, he could move to apply sanctions ranging from restrictions on the way the firm does business to breaking up the company. A final decision may not come until well into next year. If Microsoft does not settle and Jackson's rulings are upheld, other firms could use the findings for the basis of civil lawsuits against Microsoft, experts said. Firms could cite Jackson's finding that Microsoft was a monopoly and would only need to prove their company was injured by abuse of that monopoly power. ''One benefit to consumers of pursuing this case to a final judgement is that these findings then have a legal affect that they wouldn't otherwise. They can then be used in other cases by consumers to pursue remedies on their own,'' said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. ''That is a real public service of the case,'' added Blumenthal, a spokesman for the 19 states that joined the U.S. Justice Department in bringing the antitrust action, one of the biggest of the century. If Microsoft and the government settle, however, the finding of monopoly power would never become final and firms seeking to sue the company would have to go through the difficult task of proving it holds monopoly power. Microsoft, which won an appellate court decision last year in a previous government antitrust action, vowed to continue the legal battle, but founder and chief executive Bill Gates left open the door for resuming settlement negotiations. ''From the very beginning, we've said we would like nothing better than to settle this case,'' he said following Friday's finding. Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein, who brought the government action, said the Justice Department would be willing to talk about a settlement so long as Microsoft addressed its violations of consumer choice and stifling of competitors' innovation. ''We have always said we are prepared to discuss settlement so long as the important competition issues are fully addressed,'' he said. Several earlier attempts at settling the lawsuit have failed. Analysts and attorneys said late Friday the judge's finding was a stunning decision in favor of the Justice Department and the 19 states that brought the case. ''It's a smashing victory for the government. There is no question about that,'' said attorney Rich Gray of the Silicon Valley law firm Outside General Counsel. ''The judge has accepted substantially all of the government's arguments.'' Even Microsoft executives were hard-pressed to find a silver lining in the highly anticipated document. ''The findings of fact are more consistent with the government's claims than they are with Microsoft's defenses,'' said Bill Neukom, Microsoft's senior vice president for law. Blumenthal called for tough action against Microsoft, saying, ''These are serious and far-reaching violations that should lead to serious and far-reaching remedies.'' Klein said Microsoft's abuse of monopoly power had caused ''substantial harm to consumers and innovation'' and should result in ''serious remedial redress.'' But he said it was premature to say exactly what sanctions Microsoft should face. Attorneys on both sides said they expected to hold a meeting with Jackson soon to discuss the next steps for the case. The judge has asked the government to file a brief on Dec. 6 outlining how to apply antitrust laws to Friday's finding, with Microsoft due to file its responding brief on Jan. 17. The government would then get a chance to file a response by Jan. 24, with Microsoft's final response due Jan. 31.

To: J. P. who wrote (32168)	11/6/1999 4:49:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Apple dropped the ball in the early 80's when they could have liscensed out their OS and got greedy. Apple not only has a complete monopoly on their OS but also on their Hardware. Their share of both the Mac hardware market and the Mac OS market is extremely high and extremely stable, more so than Microsoft's share of the Intel-based PC OS market. There were a few small companies that had licensed the Mac BIOS to make clones, but when Jobs came back he cancelled the contracts. I imagine that this caused "immediate and identifiable harm" to both the companies affected and for the consumer who, if they CHOSE a Mac over a PC, were forced to pay a much higher price for their genuine Mac than they would have if Apple had not exercised their monopoly power to crush the Mac Clone. Of course, no one will complain and try to force the government to sue Apple because the only reason one would pick a Mac in the first place is if they're an Apple zealot from way back or they just hate Microsoft.