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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (23706)	11/30/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Did the Judge include a finding that Microsoft was a "natural monopoly?" I didn't see such a finding. In fact, a search of the findings of fact revealed only 3 instances of the string "natural" and none of them had anything to do with natural monopolies. If Microsoft is not a natural monopoly, why consider it to be one, or analyze the case in those terms? Even telephone and electric power utilities are no longer necessarily considered natural monopolies, so why would X86 operating systems be one unless found to be so after a presentation of evidence? I think all this "natural monopoly" stuff is a red herring to divert attention from the real issues. JMHO, and not a legal opinion.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (23706)	11/30/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

However, the Microsoft antitrust case only makes sense when viewed within the framework of a particular ideology. To the extent that Microsoft money goes to the advocates of that ideology, it simply strengthens the ability of their enemies to build ideological support for destroying them. I think that's where I'd fundamentally disagree. I think trying to fit the real world into a particular ideology is sort of a religious issue, and I'm a lapsed Catholic. I wouldn't argue theology with my unlapsed parents, and I wouldn't argue ideology or political philosophy with Objectivist or their Libertarian cousins. I still have a certain affection for the Mother Church, and libertarian philosophy has an appealing consistency, but it's a theory. It goes up against political reality, where the Republicans who, as the traditional pro-business party, should be sympathetic, have to reach out to the other kind of religious purist to get enough votes to stay in power. The real world is messy. Most real world politicians can't afford the luxury of ideological purity. The maxim is "all politics are local", and the locals just aren't that interested. An amusing aside you might appreciate: Over the holidays, my father and brother-in-law were having a fairly spirited current affairs discussion which hit the Kosovo topic. I was going to interject my somewhat cynical view, that you had to understand Bosnia to understand Kosovo, but I gave up before I could get started, neither of them could remember anything about Bosnia. And they're not dumb people, either. Cheers, Dan. P.S. Robert Levy is not my favorite Microsoft tool. That honor would go to old Rick Rule, of course, formerly employed by Microsoft "on other matters". Or should I say, Rick RULEZZZZZZZ!