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: taxman who wrote (33130)	11/8/1999 11:25:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

taxman: This judge is so much more mean spirited than MSFT he makes Ballmer look like a cupcake. The guy tried to sneak conclusions into his finding of fact and has been gunning for MSFT ever since day one of the trial. He is trying to get even for the last overturn. The MSFT legal team did a credible job except for the demos (MSFT's fault there) but for some mysterious reason John Warden didn't seem to be used in this trial and he, without a doubt, was MSFT's best hired gun. The format of the trial and the time alotted for MSFT'spreparation was a give away that the judge was laying a trap for the Redmond boys. This outcome is no surprise and that is why the stock is not trading down more than 2-3 points. JFD

To: taxman who wrote (33130)	11/8/1999 1:51:00 PM
From: pagejack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

With attorney-client confidentiality, etc., it is unwise to speculate where the fault would lie. There can be no doubt that the Gov't team presented a focused and effective case-in-chief (using Bill G.'s taped deposition, etc) and that they "ate Microsoft's lunch" on cross-examination of MSFT's defense witnesses. However, one can never know whether the client (MSFT) rejected the advice of its trial lawyers. I have been in situations where the client, for whatever reason, chooses to plunge ahead contrary to sound legal advice. Sometimes there are valid policy or other "non-legal" reasons for doing so, and unless we can get inside of MSFT's corporate head, we will never know the why or wherefore of their decision-making process. I do sense that the MSFT litigation team was not "calling the shoots" as they should have when it came to questions of what testimony and/or evidence would be offered during the trial. The example of this that comes most readily to mind is the fiasco with the demonstration that IE could not be removed from WIN without slowing the operating system. It seems to me that MSFT's attorneys were presenting evidence that they did not themselves understand or have meaningful input into developing. MSFT's creditability was significantly damaged by that single mistake. Again, it is difficult for a trial attorney to tell a client that he won't present the evidence that the client wants presented. So, I think it unwise to place the responsibility for the poor showing at trial solely on the attorneys until we have more information about who was "calling the shots".