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 : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (28826)	11/7/1999 11:56:00 PM
From: Jack Whitley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

>>>Fair enough. Jackson makes clear (though technically only factually, not legally) that he is using very traditional definitions of monopoly and unfair competition. So 'the moment' has lasted from the creation of the Sherman Antitrust act, through today. So we're talking about a century, now.>>> I think the finding of fact was well written. I've been reading more about Justice Jackson, in addition to being a Dartmouth and Harvard Law grad, he is looked at in judicial circles as being not technically challenged, to the point of keeping his own trial database on his laptop. I am encouraged that he issued the finding separately, and in great detail. As I understand it, since he did this, it would be very difficult for MSFT to obfuscate the finding of fact and law together into something that would be more easily reversible by an appeals court. I think Justice Jackson understands the importance of this case, and is acting accordingly. For those who haven't had a chance to read it, an excellent summary below - Highlights from Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" in the United States vs. Microsoft case: "Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market," that is, Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Because Microsoft's market share is so dominant, it prevents rivals to Windows "from attracting significant consumer demand, and would continue to do so even if Microsoft held its prices substantially above the competitive level. "Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems." "Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers [original equipment manufacturers] and inducing them to behave in ways that augment and prolong that monopoly power." "It is Microsoft's corporate practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished software products." "The AOL coup [in which AOL agreed to use Internet Explorer as its primary browser], which Microsoft accomplished only at tremendous expense to itself and considerable deprivation of consumers' freedom of choice, thus contributed to extinguishing the threat that Navigator posed to the applications barrier to entry." "The period since 1996 has witnessed a large increase in the usage of Microsoft's browsing technologies and a concomitant decline in Navigator's share. ... The relative shares would not have changed nearly as much as they did, however, had Microsoft not devoted its monopoly profits to precisely that end." "Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and in stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest." jww