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 (34740)	11/24/1999 3:40:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I think you folks read a lot more into it than is there. Microsoft should not have been surprised to find itself in court. Its "Cut off Netscape's air supply" tactics should have (and probably) raised red flags in their legal department. And a little more liberal reading of the consent decree might have kept them out of trouble, but they instead chose to push the limits -- probably due to the "corporate culture" effects one author discussed recently (not sure if I saw it here or on another thread; sorry). Nobody else in the industry comes close to the arrogance that brought this on Microsoft; not Sun, not Oracle, nobody. I certainly don't see any "miscarriage of justice," and think the melodrama buys you nothing. Furthermore, unless Microsoft makes all these arguments to the judge now, I doubt any appellate court will be interested, which is why I wondered whether you had seen any filings raising these alleged "issues." If the judge hasn't been made aware of his supposed "errors" and given a chance to correct them, why should an appeals court ride in on a (three?) white charger(s) and reverse? Commercial speech isn't protected to nearly the extent as other speech, so I don't think free speech is even an issue. If the DOJ were to go after BG & Co. for obstruction of justice as a result of his lobbying efforts, you might have something, but going around telling companies you'll (illegally) crush them unless they sell out cheap isn't even close to protected speech. Nor are there any protectable property rights to ill-gotten gains. Ask any drug dealer. Yep, we're miles apart in how we perceive the issues. I'm a reasonable mind, and I'll assume you are, too, so I guess reasonable minds can differ. That leaves it up to the finder of facts. And he has spoken. JMHO, and not a legal opinion, as always.