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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (30469)	12/19/1999 10:16:00 AM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Nihil, Though Mindmeld mistakenly thought that you were talking about CSCO rather than NT, he is correct about your statements on criminal, monopolistic practices by NT. NT has or had 90% of the market because they were first to market. The market was also quite small, so as a % of total business, it is irrelevant. Your statement that they should be in jail as a result of owning this business borders on foolishness, imo. LU now has a product and CSCO is claiming to have one by early to mid next year. The market for this product is also just beginning to expand. Nobody is monopolizing anything in that particular space. Now, if you want to make the argument for CSCO owning 87% of the router market because of a proprietary IOS and lack of open systems standards for other vendors, you may have gROund to stand on, but that will never go to court. That is why we all own CSCO. Brian

To: nihil who wrote (30469)	12/19/1999 5:57:00 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Nihil, I don't claim to be a lawyer, so your accusation that I am legally illiterate may be true, at least to an accredited lawyer. However, I do back up what I say with facts. In my previous message to you, I said that monopolies are not illegal. It is the abuse of monopolistic power that is illegal. For a reference, please visit the following link at the FTC's site: ftc.gov So while you may believe that Alcoa was the definitive case, it seems to this illiterate and childish person that the FTC is not sticking to the Alcoa case's legal premises too stringently. BTW, sorry. I thought you were talking about Cisco not Nortel. My mistake. All legal rhetoric aside, Nihil, do you really believe the FTC would prosecute Cisco or Nortel for having around 90% market share within a slice of the networking industry? Don't mean to be antagonistic. I'm just curious, as I am trying to determine if you are debating theoretics or really believe that your theories will be born out in reality.