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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (23553)	11/13/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

Hi folks. I've followed this case fairly closely from the start and have long appreciated the take on it from Gerald and others on this thread. One of the interesting things about this is to watch where Microsoft's incredibly good spin machine leads writers. One of the common interpretations of the case is represented by this Red Herring article: redherring.com ...the Microsoft legal team expected to take it on the chin when the finding of fact was issued. The real question is: does it matter any more? Just because something is spin doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. This article is presented as investment analysis and is, I believe, right on target. The industry is changing and Microsoft is changing with it, sometimes following and sometimes leading the change. But others go far beyond this kind of simple investment analysis and expand on the notion that this writer mentions only in passing, calling the FOF "...a decision that's nearly outdated for a technology market moving far faster than the legal process." Is that really fair? What would this fast-charging technology market look like today if this case had never been filed? Consider just the possible future market for "internet appliances". Absent this suit, how might Microsoft have responded to competitive threats from equipment makers who sell products that forego Microsoft code? If the product came from any manufacturer that licenses Windows as an OEM, Microsoft could have responded by placing restrictions on the license or higher costs for Windows. At the very least, they might have responded by preventing the manufacturer from pre-loading any code that would make it easier to interface a non-Microsoft device with a Windows box. One can easily imagine similar licensing and marketing restrictions that would make it more difficult for a box maker to ship a PC or other device that uses ASP services from a provider not favored by Microsoft. When one looks at it in that light, it seems unfair to say that the "technology market [is] moving far faster than the legal process." By its nature, the legal process must concentrate on past practices, but Jackson's ruling seems to be just as forward-looking as the market: "...Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft?s core products." I'm not at all sure what the appropriate remedy is, but I'm fairly certain that part of the remedy is already in place. Merely by filing and prosecuting this case, the plaintiffs have put winds in the sails of technologies that now pose threats to the monopoly. Because of the suit and the clear focus it has brought to Microsoft licensing practices, Microsoft has been unable to "leverage the Windows franchise" as effectively as it might otherwise have done. The fast-moving technology market that we can see now shows just how necessary this case was. I doubt that it would be moving nearly as quickly if this case had not been filed.