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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jean M. Gauthier who wrote (22446)	11/6/1999 4:09:00 PM
From: Michael F. Donadio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 64865

<<AOL, SUN & Netscape are THRIVING....>> Jean, AOL and SUNW may be thriving, but I don't think that can be said of Netscape. It basically collapsed "deprived of its air supply". I for one, liked Netscape and preferred it. I use it to this day. Its days however, may be numbered: dailynews.yahoo.com That would not have been the case if MSFT had not attacked it the way it did. It was not enough to just offer it for free, as if that would not be enough, they coerced and threatened computer makers, such as COMPAQ, from placing Netscape on their opening screens. Later they bundled it with windows 98 and made it awkward to use an alternative browser, in spite of consumer preferences. Fair, in my estimate, was for MSFT to have come out with a competitive browser, and let the CONSUMER's decide which they wanted without stacking the deck. And YES they might have not won market share it that manner, but they would have lost HONESTLY. Microsoft, however, was the dealer, as well as controling which cards it got for its hand and what was dealt out to others. I also dislike the DOJ for intervening, but it was responding to an outcry by legions of competitors throughout the US. They could not be ignored. It was not just a few disgruntled competitors looking for big brother to step in. Their cases had LEGAL merit as Judge Penfield has ruled. He listened to both sides. Consumer harm has to be measured by what Netscape and other companies might have been if Microsoft's practices had been LEGAL. As Scott McNealy said, and I agree, as a monopoly there are existing laws which Microsoft was expected to follow and it was was violating those laws. It was also ignoring the 1994 consent decree. It could have been an ethical monopoly, it chose not to. Michael

To: Jean M. Gauthier who wrote (22446)	11/6/1999 4:29:00 PM
From: cfimx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Jean, I respect your stance and your courage to say it here.