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: EPS who wrote (32671)	11/7/1999 6:04:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Let me tell you what's really troubling in that opinion. MS cited an IBM case. IBM redesigned the CPU to prevent 3rd parties from making peripherals. In that case IBM argued that it's intent was to make a better CPU and the fact that it rendered 3rd party incompatibility was not consequential. There was language in that case to the argument that if any benefit might be derived from the change, then IBM has no duty make it compatible. MS cited this language as an INTERPRETATON of the case. This is not "misrepresentation" it is argument. Why would MS misstate the case. The judge has the case in a book behind his desk. No, it is the fact that the Judge was so violent in his criticism of MS. He characterizes this argument as Gross Misrepresentation??? It does not seem usual. It may indicate an extreme propensity to find against MS. This part is troublesome. Duke