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: mauser96 who wrote (23729)	12/2/1999 11:01:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Yes, I did see the WSJ article. If you look carefully at Warren-Boulton's testimony, it, too, provides a roadmap of possible remedies. . IMHO, I don't think any of these remedies would seriously harm MSFT. 1) would please users (who would almost all select Internet Explorer anyway)2) would make box makers happier and be good PR 3) is a bit more tricky, but likely if these middleware players products improved, it would create more demand for Windows. Why is MSFT resisting a deal like this? Hubris? In my view, these various conduct remedies would harm Microsoft's (or its offspring's) ability to respond to changes in the marketplace, would spawn more regulations, as efforts to be fair to Microsoft lead to efforts to impose compensating regulatons on its competitors, and, as other companies are subjected to the same regime, would shift the economy even further away from the free market model than it already is. Personally, in the long run, I think structural remedies are in the best interest of Microsoft, and the economy.

To: mauser96 who wrote (23729)	12/3/1999 8:46:00 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

From NT Mag email: Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Microsoft antitrust trial and what, if anything, the government should do to curb the software giant's insatiable business appetite. I've had many friends and family who aren't involved in the computer industry ask me about Microsoft's troubles because the trial has finally registered with the mainstream national media. People want to know whether Microsoft is really that bad and whether the government will take the axe to the company and divide it into "Baby Bills." Like it or loathe it, the Microsoft antitrust trial is everywhere. Of course, I have to pipe in with my own take on this topic. As I discussed 2 weeks ago, Microsoft has been walking a fine line between aggressive business practices and outright abuse of its monopoly for some time now. Although many of us snickered at Bill Gates' videotaped deposition earlier this year, few people believed that we'd suddenly find ourselves on the brink of the company's destruction. And yet, representatives from the US government and states that are suing Microsoft refuse to exclude that possibility. With the release of Judge Jackson's findings of fact, everything has changed. So what's going to happen? My money is on a settlement. In fact, lawyers from Microsoft and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will meet with a mediator this week in an attempt to hammer out a settlement to end the case; it behooves Microsoft to make this settlement happen before the judge releases his findings of law, due in January, which will spell out which antitrust laws the company has broken. For any settlement to occur, both sides must make concessions, although one could argue that the government's position seems solid at this point given the matter-of-fact way that Judge Jackson ripped apart Microsoft's defense in his findings of fact. Microsoft has said again and again that it would never give in to a settlement that prevented the company from continuing to innovate. However, no one has ever accused Microsoft of innovating anything, to my knowledge. And no, I'm not trying to be flip. Innovation is not what this case is about at all--it's about abuse, arrogance, and greed. It's about breaking the law. Oddly enough, the best solution to this problem that I've heard has come from Sun Microsystems CEO and President, Scott McNealy, an outspoken critic of Microsoft, who belittles the software giant any time he can in speeches and other public appearances. But McNealy is humorous and intelligent, and his take on the Microsoft antitrust trial rings true. During a press question-and-answer session following his keynote address at Comdex in Las Vegas last week, someone asked McNealy what he would do if he were the judge in the Microsoft antitrust case. After rubbing his hand together evilly for the effect (it was hilarious), McNealy explained that he would require Microsoft to do the following things before he agreed to any settlement: 1. Microsoft must end its practice of preclusive agreements, where a PC maker can't bundle competitive products (such as Netscape) on a machine that ships with Windows. 2. Microsoft must open its application programming interfaces (APIs) for its two monopoly products, Windows and Office, so that competitors can add value to these products more easily. 3. Microsoft should standardize its pricing so that all PC makers pay the same price for Windows. IBM, McNealy noted, should not pay more for Windows than Dell just because IBM competes with Microsoft in other areas. 4. Microsoft should not be able to leverage its monopoly in desktop OSs to enter new markets. Aside from point two, none of these requirements is particularly controversial, and they all make a lot of sense. Best of all, none of the items will prevent Microsoft from innovating in any way, so the company can save face publicly and explain to its shareholders that these requirements are very much in line with its existing business plans. So on that note, I'm calling on the federal government and states to make these requirements mandatory for any settlement. It just makes sense. Paul Thurrott Windows NT Magazine UPDATE News Editor -- Get IE 5.5 at download.microsoft.com