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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (3029)	11/8/1999 12:27:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

John Cutberthson (sp?) on "Who wants to be a millionaire?" (QCOM SI investor) Sorry Ramsey, wrong thread. Bux

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (3029)	11/8/1999 9:33:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

. In other words, the central problem was that a so-called Gorilla was attempting to deal with a disruptive technology that threatened it. I am not saying that softie didn't go to far in attempting to deal with Netscape. What I am saying is that this was not your typical, traditional anti-trust situation. The long-term implications are to restrict the actions of Gorillas and perhaps even to cripple them from ever reaching Gorilla status. Mike, further to your reply to JGoren, I would add that I am not sure why JG is positing the bolded snip as a reason for "Justice" (much as I can't stand JReno) not to pursue MSFT. Whether or not this can can or should be characterized as "typical, traditional anti-trust situation", when it has been determined that an entity has attempted to use its monopoly power (so determined as fact by Justice Jackson) to quash an embryonic technology/business that might threated the entity's monopoly seems to be a quintessentially appropriate occasion for regulators to use the anti-trust laws to sanction that entity. And by saying this, I do not mean I am in favor of unfettered or abusive governmental power to meddle in the private sector, by any stretch. Upon being reminded of MSFT's clumsy, shoot oneself in the foot use of the tape to establish how the browser was an integral part of the Windows OS, I'm still amazed at how amateurish MSFT's internal lawyers, PR, marketing, and technology folks let MSFT be exposed and respresented to the Judge (and the public) in this way. Steve