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 (23724)	12/2/1999 11:59:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Uh, to return the mild barb, I get the definite sense that you want to get into political philosophy again, and I've violated my personal 12 step program on that too much already. To redirect a little, I've always professed skepticism on the "remedies" side of the antitrust battle, and on the legal side, the trial has mainly been a source of amusement as to how badly Microsoft has botched it. I've always understood that "the Chicago School" defense was Microsoft's strongest case, though I was vague about the how the "natural monopoly" fit in. But Microsoft didn't raise that defense, in fact they argued against it. DoJ didn't make that case, so what bearing does it have at this point? Serious question: If the case goes forward in court, can a higher level just pull the "natural monopoly" defense out of thin air? I'm sure the DC circuit would be more than willing to try, but would the Supreme Court go that far? I assume Microsoft doesn't get to start a whole new line of defense on appeal, right? Or maybe not, I suppose they can put whatever they want into the filings, and "natural monopoly" has to be better, legally, than the perpetual "innovation=bundling software" mantra. Cheers, Dan.