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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23627)	11/19/1999 5:34:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Respond to of 24154

Dan, Another article to peruse from someone at BeOS I think who discusses a little on the ease of introducing new OS's on the "open" market. Message 11932637 Cheers, Norm

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23627)	11/19/1999 6:21:00 PM
From: DJ	Respond to of 24154

Dan, aren't you a University of Chicago guy? (just not a "dreaded" economics major?) Doesn't the Chicago ideology permeate the campus--it certainly reaches to the law school. I've read Posner's early book, Law and Economics, and it's an entirely creative and brilliant exposition of not just a rationale for antitrust law but many branches of law--all focusing on a theme of efficiency.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23627)	11/20/1999 1:17:00 AM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 24154

Commentary: How Intel Played it Right This pretty much sums it up ... Business Week Online businessweek.com More than anything, the outcomes of the cases against the twin titans of technology underscore the difference between aggressiveness and arrogance. Intel is incomparably ferocious, but Chairman Andrew S. Grove and other managers have known setbacks and tough times--among them the company's wrenching 1985 decision to exit the memory-chip business and the snowballing public humiliation of the Pentium bug in 1994. Those challenges taught Intel if not humility, then at least some savviness in navigating crises. And they've reinforced that compromise can be smarter than holding out for total victory. Microsoft, by contrast, suffers from a youthful cockiness that it should have outgrown. Its reaction to the antitrust case 'was that of a child in a supermarket who flings himself on the floor, kicking and screaming, when his mother says he can't have a piece of candy,' says Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future. Microsoft seemed to view the case as an affront, a roadblock to be overcome with the same potent mix of bullying and spin control it uses so effectively in the market. ... Gates and team might have avoided much of that if they had shown less hubris. Like a child prodigy, Microsoft is all brilliance and energy, not yet possessed of wisdom. The next few years may help it grow up. By Andy Reinhardt

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23627)	11/20/1999 2:53:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

This Posner appointment is extremely interesting. It's the first real evidence that Microsoft is serious about the latest settlement round. It could be that the government and judge want Posner, a conservative Microsoft should trust, to be the one that delivers to Microsoft the bad news, the knockout blow, that the government's case is airtight, Microsoft's situation is hopeless, and he is the best shot Microsoft has of coming out of this alive. And if the theory that Microsoft is a natural monopoly is B.S., Posner is certainly the man to deliver that message. However, I don't think Posner would do that. Based on what he has written about both the competitive process and about natural monopoly, I think Posner would more likely say that the competitive process in the software industry is imperfectly understood and constantly evolving, that a lot of the conduct that the judge has found to be anticompetitive really isn't and that the government is not going to be able to fashion a very effective remedy in this case because it is trying to apply laws intended for competitive markets to a natural monopoly situation. So, a lot of those "serious competitive issues" the government says the case is about may go away after Posner looks at them. I would guess that Microsoft probably hopes Posner will deliver that message to the government. On the other hand, I don't think the government agreed to him just so it could throw away a major victory. Posner will be uniquely qualified to separate the wheat from the chaff of the government's case and tell the parties what will stand up on appeal and what won't. He can also suggest to the government what kind of remedy is appropriate. His appointment suggests that the government is genuinely in a quandry over what remedies to propose, as it should be. I also think this appointment increases the chances of a stipulated divestiture, i.e., a breakup.