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: cheryl williamson who wrote (33213)	11/8/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

DELL owns the actual, physical box they make, but DELL can't take action against you or against me for making our own, EXACT REPLICA (minus the trademark) of their PC and selling it, perhaps at a fraction of their price. Neither you, nor I could do the same with an Ultra without facing legal action from Sun. Get it???? DELL owns many patents on the boxes they make. Just try making an exact duplicate minus the trademark and see what happens. From Company Sleuth: Listing all new patents granted in the last 1 month PATENT No. DESCRIPTION 5,978,860 System and method for disabling and re-enabling at least one peripheral device in a computer system by masking a device-configuration-space-access-signal with a disable or re-enable signal 5,978,856 System and method for reducing latency in layered device driver architectures 5,978,210 Two-piece flex circuit bobbin for portable computers 5,975,735 Method and apparatus for mounting a peripheral device 5,974,573 Method for collecting ECC event-related information during SMM operations 5,974,544 Method and controller for defect tracking in a redundant array 5,974,497 Computer with cache-line buffers for storing prefetched data for a misaligned memory access 5,973,485 Method and apparatus for a multiple stage sequential synchronous regulator 5,973,225 Isolation and characterization of a gene encoding a low molecular weight glutenin 5,969,939 Computer with docking station for docking and cooling the computer 5,965,842 Low impedance connection for an EMI containment shield including metal plating bonded to the shielded equipment through openings in a conductive ribbon I'm not saying that MSFT doesn't own their O/S. I'm saying that any O/S written for the PC should be in the public domain, including MSFT's. Yes, that means that they would have to divest themselves of the O/S products that they have developed over the years. That means that api's, libs, utils, language processors, testing tools, O/S, device drivers etal. that run on Personal Computers would belong to the public. MSFT would still be free to develop ANY proprietary application it wanted that would run on this O/S. They could continue to sell it to anyone they wanted and price it any way they wanted. You see, this just doesn't follow. Why should the OS be in the public domain just because there's an open specification for the hardware? And why do you find a difference between the OS and application programs? Many things that used to be apps or utilities are now distributed as part of the OS, such as defragmenters and Internet Browsers. And why do you consider things like utilities, compilers, testing tools, etc to part of the OS and not applications? BTW, since Java is just a Language Processor and it does indeed run on a PC then it should be in the public domain by your argument, and not owned, controlled, or licensed by Sun in any way.

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (33213)	11/8/1999 3:53:00 PM
From: Charles T. Russell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I think you need to be a little more precise here. By PC, I'm assuming that you mean an INTEL based 8088(et al) instruction set device. If you do, you now need to extend the term PC to include the AMDs of the world who've built instruction set compatible CPU and companion chip sets. What you're assuming is that the PC (using the definition above) architecture is indeed in the public domain. There is a limited amount of 'cloning' that occurs without the threat of litigation. This assumption set gets a little murky, as we've seen in the past where BIOS code and the micro code on chip sets are indeed copyright(able). So I think your envisioning that the PC architecture is in the public domain. Let's assume that it is. What would stop Microsoft from building a PowerPC line of computers tomorrow. This certainly doesn't fit the 'PC' architecture described above. Let's assume that they discontinue PC OS innovation today and place the current Windows OS intellectual property in the public domain a la open source. Microsoft now directs all of their R&D towards the power PC. Is this a good thing for the market? Is it good for the shareholder? Does it benefit the consumer Probably a no in all cases. Let's then assume that in 5 years, that this new MS computer has 70% marketshare? Does the bundling of the OS and the hardware exempt them from antitrust litigation. No it wouldn't. Had Apple played their cards right and created an 'open' Macintosh, they would most likely be the subject of the lawsuit now facing Microsoft. What ultimately got Microsoft into trouble was the predatory nature/posture they took when dealing with Sun, Netscape and AOL. It was documented. And when it played back in court it was pretty frightening. What concerned the government the most was the fear that ultimately MS would (and could) charge whatever the monopolistic market would bear. By bundling for free those innovations that competitors would need to price does not really violate US anti-trust law. Separating the browser from the operating system is just a red herring. It is nonsense. The real value of the internet economy is based on what is delivered to the browser. It shouldn't be the browser that is the issue. The browser is itself based upon a fairly open, well defined standard (HTML et al...). Ultimately the price of a browser would have been driven to zero anyway. No vendor would have been able to build a company around a product that is relatively easy to duplicate and must abide by a well published standard. The browsers would become freeware. Did Microsoft stifle innovation in the browser market. They did not. Look at the quality of Netscape Nav, Opera etc. Did they stifle innovation in the OS market, no. Linux is an excellent operating system. Look at the Java OS. The innovation in the OS and browser market continueds. But why haven't these products begun to approach the success of the MS products. The reason is that the consumer secretly wants a monopoly, defined as standard-bearer. They have benefited by this, in that the OS standards have fostered the huge growth in application products. This is another argument entirely and I'll stop right there. Years ago in economics class we studied the laws of diminishing returns. Today, looking at MS, we see an example of the law of increasing returns, or first mover advantage with an install base exceeding critical mass. Is US antitrust law prepared for this type of market. Not yet, but it better be. Microsoft is not an isolated case. Other 'monopolies' will clearly spring up in the internet economy where first mover advantage, and critical mass are the mantra. Don't let anyone preaching the "beauty of frictionless economies", or the "democracy of the internet" fool you. The internet is in fact very fertile ground for the monopolies of the new millenium. These will certainly be knowledge-based monopolies built upon critical mass and first mover advantage.