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: Charles Tutt who wrote (34717)	11/23/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Not to mention that most of Microsoft's witnesses didn't hold up real well under cross examination. The judge's job wasn't to split the difference between the two stories told.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (34717)	11/23/1999 8:18:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

CT: If he did he offered no explanation why he thought the DOJ facts were more factual than the MSFT facts. The facts were really conclusions and totally ignored any of the facts presented by the other side. The judge is a judge not a prosecutor (although his court conduct would lead one to believe he saw himself as prosecutor)and should appear as a judge until it is time for him to draw conclusions of law at which time he becomes a quasi jury. His very narrow definition of a monopoly offered as a finding of fact puts SUNW and AAPL at risk of being lumped into the same category. Also his fanciful speculation of harm to the consumer is another red flag wherein a poorly drawn and speculative conclusion is substituted for fact. These items in and of themselves will ring alarm bells at the Appellate Court. Even the sneaking of conclusions in as facts in itself is grounds for reversal. This case is DOA and the worst thing that will happen to MSFT is that they will lose to Jackson and Jackson will be reversed. JFD