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: Bob Clark who wrote (32256)	11/6/1999 1:09:00 PM
From: art slott	Respond to of 74651

No need for the judge to imagine anything. He's got loads of documentation on the ways MS was "stifling competition" to "so much monopoly pricing power it could charge for Windows sustantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market."

To: Bob Clark who wrote (32256)	11/6/1999 1:12:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Bob: Exactly and not extreme as I posted an identical thought last night in the wee hours of the AM. The harm to consumer is based on speculative projections. Give ME A BREAK JUDGE! JFD

To: Bob Clark who wrote (32256)	11/6/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Frank Ellis Morris	Respond to of 74651

<<Don't think monopoly market share is the problem, MS is prosecuted because the consumer is now without some software or gizmo that the judge assumes or imagines they would have by now. That's kind of disturbing - how about down the road some form of medical diagnostic test reveals one has a gene that's associated with violent behavior, now the gov can prosecute that person on an assumption or an imaginary act that person might commit. (I know it's extreme but I can imagine this case could be a step in this direction). << Bob, The finding of Judge Jackson against Microsoft was nothing more than a disgraceful measure of injustice. Microsoft is found to own a monopoly and is judged guilty of being able to grow, prosper and dominate by innovation and implementation. Lets face it every company would the same thing and would show no mercy for another competitor if they could succeed. This case is most disturbing because it was the most obnoxious sham of the century. The agenda was to bring down a self made entrepreneur and billionaire. Microsoft will be around long after those idiots who try to bring it down are dead and gone. I thought this was supposed to be America where one can dream and work to achieve success. In the Case of Bill Gates the agenda is not against Microsoft but against Bill Gates. I see nothing to indicate that the giant Microsoft did anything wrong but to be successful. I wonder if Microsoft is in the same situation that ATT was. If you add up the spin offs of ATT you would have done extremely well. Microsoft may feel a little pain for a while but long term Microsoft should have a great opportunity. Best Wishes Frank

To: Bob Clark who wrote (32256)	11/6/1999 3:04:00 PM
From: Kevin Hay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

re: <<MS is prosecuted because the consumer is now without some software or gizmo that the judge assumes or imagines they would have by now>> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I think this is key. The courts are not supposed to rule on theoretical questions. But your above statement is now a 'fact', theoretical as it be. Typically facts require some kind of evidence that you can point to, measure, verify... .., you know, evidence. This judge apparently is allowed to turn conjecture into fact. It'll be a long dreary road to resolution of this. I wouldn't hold my breath for a settlement. The doj is going to want too much.