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.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (74097)	11/7/1999 4:52:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 86076

CB, it may be that Bill Gates gave in into the idea that present PC is passe and more appliances and remote computing is the wave of the future, therefore in 3 to 5 years the present O/S will be also passe, and at that time the Justice will make a pass on Microsoft as it happened with IBM. Even if that is the case IMHO from a business point of view he makes a mistake going against the DOJ, it will open the possibility of many other lawsuits which will only enrich litigation attorney and distract the company. Longer term such litigation are not in the benefit of the company. Even if he starts negotiations with the DOJ it will take at least one year but he will remove many uncertainty, which is beneficial to the company. It seems to me that he does not know were to cut his losses and move forward. 10 years from now who will need the present PC in it's present incarnation??? BWDIK Haim

To: Ilaine who wrote (74097)	11/7/1999 9:50:00 PM
From: Ken98	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

Cobalt, welcome back. <<If the evidence could go either way, then the trial judge's interpretation of those facts must be sustained, under our legal system. The appellate court doesn't sit as a super-jury, all they do is review the factual record to determine whether there is any basis for the determination.>> This point is critical and is the very point that I have not seen mentioned in a single article or tv story. And, those findings of fact will be binding in subsequent lawsuits. Likewise, soft faces huge exposure to damages now. After having muddled though the 200 odd pages of the opinion several things struck me. The opinion was very well written and logically concise. Another was bald-faced arrogance of Soft and Gates and many of the senior executives. They managed to explicitly (and frequently in writing) violate almost every major tenet of antitrust law. But the most striking thing was extent to which Soft was willing to go to maintain and perpetuate its monopoly. They were willing to pull Compaq's windows license for putting netscape on the boot-up menu. They were willing to put a gun to IBM's head (delay of new licenses and charging more to IBM than other OEMs) to stop OS/2 and smartsuite. These findings are a gut-shot for soft: <<In any event, Microsoft's interactions with Netscape, IBM, Intel, Apple and RealNetworks all reveal Microsoft's business strategy of directing its monopoly power toward inducing other companies to abandon projects that threaten Microsoft and toward punishing those companies that resist.>> Para. 132 <<The countless communications that Microsoft's executives dispatched to each other about the company's need to capture browser usage share indicate that the purpose of the effort had little to do with attracting ancillary revenues and everything to do with protecting the applications barrier from the threat posed by Netscape's Navigator and Sun's implementation of Java.>> Para. 142 <<After all, whereas Microsoft retaliated in subtle and not-so-subtle ways against OEMs, such as IBM, that pre-installed software on their PCs that Microsoft found minatory, it pronounced more extreme sanctions against OEMs, such as Compaq, that had the temerity to remove icons and program entries from the Windows desktop that Microsoft placed there.>> Para. 279 <<None of these actions had pro-competitive justifications.>> Para. 410 Wow. These are pretty far reaching findings of fact and enough to support any of several antitrust violations. The final thing that struck me was that several prominent NDX companies might have conspiracy liability here. Most notably a semiconductor maker, OEM and ISP. Are there any theories that would help/hurt these co-conspirators here? Or will they get drug down in the mud with soft? It will be interesting to see the lawsuits that WILL be filed in the next couple of days. Regards, Ken.