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: blankmind who wrote (35071)	12/5/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: PMS Witch	Respond to of 74651

Off topic -- Hillary ...Clintonistas have about as much chance of proving harm to the consumer; as Hillary proving she hasn't had a facelift ... If Hillary had a facelift, the Clintonistas should be going after her surgeon. Cheers, PW. P.S. Maybe not! It's probably impossible to put a happy face on a road apple.

To: blankmind who wrote (35071)	12/5/1999 3:56:00 PM
From: pagejack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I may be mistaken but I believe that the DOJ has proved harm to the consumer. Judge Jackson made several specific findings of fact on that important issue. Those findings of fact can't be overturned on appeal so long as there is "substantial evidence" to support his findings. Courts of Appeals rarely overturn trial judges on the basis of a lack of substantial evidence. So I would say that DOJ has gone a long way to showing harm to the consumer. I am long MSFT and believe that it is a good investment regardless of the outcome of the litigation. However, I can't understand why so many individuals on this topic are in denial about the importance of Judge Jackson's findings of fact and the simple truth that DOJ presented evidence which, if believed (and Judge Jackson did believe it) supports those findings. On appeal MSFT does not get a second bite at the apple on the findings of fact.