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: John F. Dowd who wrote (33851)	11/12/1999 7:34:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

To All: Trading at $89.75 in Frankfurt. What do you folks think of the Loral rumor? Who was it who said MSFT wouldn't be a factor in communications? JFD

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (33851)	11/12/1999 9:26:00 AM
From: taxman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

how can you trust something from the liberal press. the judge's ruling is unassailable. now if this had been stated in the wall street journal....... regards

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (33851)	11/12/1999 4:16:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

It is amazing that we need law professors to tell us that the judge's "findings" in crucial areas are grounded on his personal dislike for MSFT... Hmm. And you once accused me of being unable to read. Nowhere in the article do any of the quoted sources say that Jackson's finding are grounded on his personal dislike of Microsoft. The writer provides this summary: "The antitrust experts say that Jackson's finding of monopoly power -- a crucial first step to winning an antitrust case, but not a violation on its own -- seems unshakable. They also say that the findings do seem to establish that some of Microsoft's contracts with computer makers like Compaq and with Internet service providers like America Online were exclusionary, by unfairly limiting the distribution, promotion and use of competing software." [my emph.] The most damning statement is this one from a George Washington U professor: "But the issue for review with whether those elegant statements are made more by way of assertion than being grounded in the evidence," he said. "I do think that is open to question." Or perhaps this one: "To say there is no pro-competitive effect of integrating the browser and the operating system is an extreme position because of the appeals court's earlier decision," said Andrew Gavil, a Howard University law professor. "That finding is a live target on appeal." And even that last statement is open to question since Jackson does admit at least some limited pro-competitive effect from the integration.