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: Brian Malloy who wrote (32222)	11/6/1999 1:20:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

To those that are laypeople or less rigorous in the application may wish to call that a monopoly but it is not. Those who are laypeople or less rigorous in the application of legal terms might wish to deny that Microsoft holds "monopoly power", but the evidence weighs in against that view. Clearly, the government does have ample evidence to support that conclusion made not by "laypeople", but by a federal court. Will this conclusion be appealed? Probably. Will it be overturned? Not likely. There are far more fertile grounds for appeal elsewhere in the findings. The argument against "monopoly power" is kind of a legal long-ball pass by Microsoft's lawyers. They have little chance of connecting with it, but they'll continue to throw it out there. It spreads the field and opens them up for the more fruitful attacks. I won't predict whether they will or won't win, but Microsoft could still win on appeal even if the circuit court agrees with Jackson on the fundamental monopoly issue. The "monopoly power" is not the problem. The problem (if there is one) lies in the way Microsoft used that power. The more interesting arguments lie below the conclusion about monopoly power. These arguments are the legal equivalent of a four yard run up the center or a quick seven-yard screen pass. (Hey, it's a Saturday in November.) The arguments are less spectacular, but can win the game. It's clear that the court knows that. Compared to the summary sections on monopoly power, there is far more detail in the narrative about the specific acts that are -- when taken together -- called illegal. Since these acts reinforce the argument about monopoly power, each of them will have to be attacked in any appeal.