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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig M. Newmark who wrote (91891)	11/8/1999 1:52:00 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Thanks Craig for the article. I agree with his analysis on IBM's OS/2. The judge left out a very key piece of information - the OS/2 Toolkit was $499, meanwhile Microsoft was giving away the Win Toolkit for free to developers: MS had only ~5,000 employees while IBM had about 100,000 during the early stages of the OS/2 battle (MS was not a monopoly, but had used excellent and fair marketing tactics.) 101 ISV Marketing states, if you want to grow your platform, give developers your toolkit for free, and create no barrier for developers to build onto your platform - not even the cost barrier of a toolkit in the early stages of a company. Giving away a toolkit (in the early stage of the company) is 101 generic marketing formula for selling more platform units. I read the entire Finding of Facts and (unrelated to IBM's OS/2 because that could be a matter of perspective) I noticed the judge left out extremely significant information which could completely counter his own arguments, i.e. the information would be in Microsoft's favor, not the judge's. In this respect, the report was one-sided, which I believe will eventually work to the judge's own disadvantage. This leads me to believe there is a strong chance many aspects of the FOF will not go through in the way of orders. I like it when reports present both sides of the arguments (pros and cons), and then conclude with a position. I don't think it is fair, nor accurate, to list only one-side, while leaving out data for the other side's position. In this respect, it does not provide a completely accurate picture. Amy J