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: John F. Dowd who wrote (35793)	12/22/1999 9:57:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

Nothing too spectacular ever rose up out of Vancouver. JFD, I think something is about to now. <g> He wanted to be in a high growth industry and probably wanted a company which had not yet gone public. I think he must have received many offers and waited for the right one. Worldwide Fibre is getting a high profile CEO in Maffei and i bet this will really jump start their plans. However, I don't think he will be missed by MSFT that much. He was just one person in a huge organization that has great talent. I guess that could be another reason why he wanted to leave MSFT. In summary--not much of a loss for MSFT but a huge gain for Worldwide Fibre. I would buy their shares tomorrow if they were a public company.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (35793)	12/23/1999 2:30:00 AM
From: Brian Malloy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Quite frankly the Maffei story that the press is bantering about is inflated and overdone. Maffei has been on public record for at least two years stating that he wanted to leave MSFT because he wanted the opportunity to be CEO somewhere and was interested in a start up.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (35793)	12/23/1999 2:38:00 AM
From: Brian Malloy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Thought the thread might get a chuckle about the scummy lawyers out on a MSFT money grab. In Race to Sue Microsoft, Some Trip By David Segal Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 22, 1999; Page E01 Details, details. Getting them straight is tricky, particularly for the growing crowd of lawyers now attacking Microsoft Corp. in private antitrust litigation. Ever since Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson tarred the software giant as a bully and monopolist in his November findings of fact, dozens of lawyers have filed suits seeking damages for consumers and corporations allegedly overcharged for Microsoft products. Forty-two cases already have been filed, with many more expected in the coming months. But the race to sue--and stake a claim in this hoped-for gold rush--is producing some memorable legal bloopers. Lawyers behind one suit filed in a California state court, for instance, seemed momentarily confused about Microsoft's core business. The complaint drafted by San Diego's Krause & Kalfayan suggests at one point that the software maker is actually competing in the generic drug market. "These arrangements have enabled Microsoft Corporation to exclude other developers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems from obtaining the supply of such generic drugs' active pharmaceutical ingredient ('API')," the complaint states on Page 2. James C. Krause, a partner in the firm, described the mistake as embarrassing and said his firm knows full well that Microsoft isn't marketing drugs. Why the mix-up? A lawyer in the firm drafted the complaint by replacing key words in a suit filed against a pharmaceutical company, Krause explained. Apparently, not all of the drug references were altered. "Obviously there is a lot of commonality among various cases, so you try to be a good lawyer and take advantage of pleadings in the past, and sometimes you make a mistake and I don't think it's a big deal," Krause said. Seeking the triple damages typically awarded plaintiffs in private antitrust suits, many lawyers are finding Microsoft an irresistible, if somewhat confusing, target. But few firms have much expertise in high technology, in part because the industry has only recently attracted the attention of antitrust enforcers. Most plaintiffs' firms have scored their largest victories courtesy of more traditional product-liability matters. The law office of Shelby & Cartee in Birmingham, for example, is known for asbestos litigation. That helps explain why on Page 3 of the firm's filing against Microsoft, Shelby & Cartee claims the Redmond, Wash.-based company is principally located "within the State of Texas." The law firm also declares that it will represent consumers who purchased a computer system through "MacIntosh Computer Company" (it meant Apple Computer Inc.). A few pages later, the firm lists as possible plaintiffs anyone who has purchased Windows 2000. (That's bound to be a tiny number--like zero--as Windows 2000 has yet to go on sale.) "Like most complaints, this one was filed pretty quickly," said David Shelby, a lawyer at the firm. In fact, Shelby came up with the idea for the suit while watching a television report that aired the Friday that Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact. The following Monday, Shelby arrived at work and instructed a colleague to start typing a complaint. "It will probably require an amendment or two," Shelby said of the document, with a chuckle. Meanwhile, the Cincinnati law firm Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley contended in its complaint that "Microsoft withheld technical information from Netscape, preventing development of a Windows 95 version of Netscape Navigator." That seems unlikely, since a Windows 95 version of Navigator hit the market years ago. So how could Microsoft have "prevented" it from being developed? Robert Heuck, one of the lead lawyers in the case, explained the firm meant that Microsoft had sought to delay a Windows 95 Netscape product, in effect "preventing" Netscape from developing a Windows 95-based browser for a period of time. "There was prevention, but it was not forever," Heuck said. Microsoft officials contend that gaffes in the lawsuits are emblematic of the mistakes in logic that underlie all the allegations against the company. "It seems like all of these cases were written under the influence of an active pharmaceutical ingredient," said Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesman. "The only people who are going to benefit from these cases are lawyers." washingtonpost.com

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (35793)	12/23/1999 10:29:00 AM
From: PMS Witch	Respond to of 74651

Off topic ... Nothing too spectacular ever rose up out of Vancouver. Ever hear of BC bud? PW.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (35793)	12/23/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: ToySoldier	Respond to of 74651

Just a quick response John regarding your Nothing too spectacular ever rose up out of Vancouver. Ever heard of MSFT MSMAIL which was the pre-cursor to Exchange which is a big cach flow for MSFT? Where do you think MSFT got that from? (we know MSFT rarely if ever innovates but rather acquires its innovation) I will guess when thinking back that the company MSFT bought was called "Network Messenger" but I could be wrong. That was a Vancouver company. As the board's beloved "MSFT Hater" I find it amazing that I had to bring up this fact. Cheers and Seasons Greetings! Toy