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 (38227)	2/21/2000 12:41:00 PM
From: Jim Lamb	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft trial reconvenes Tuesday WASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - The Microsoft trial resumes on Tuesday with arguments before a federal judge to help him decide if the abuse of monopoly power he found in November amounts to a violation of the nation's antitrust laws. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson declared Nov. 5 that Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news) used monopoly power derived from its widely used Windows operating system to harm consumers, competitors and other companies. His findings of fact stopped short of any legal conclusions. Instead, he set Feb. 22 for oral arguments to help him decide how the law applies to his facts. Many observers think the world's largest software company faces a tough task in convincing Jackson that its behavior was legal. ``The market power conclusions are relatively lopsided in favor of the government based on a lot of evidence,' said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa's college of law and a co-author of a highly respected treatise on antitrust law. Jackson wrote in his findings of fact that ``Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products.' The government argued in written briefs that Jackson's findings ``establish that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act in at least four ways,' by erecting barriers to competitors, tying the purchase of its dominant personal computer operating system to acceptance of its other software, entering exclusionary agreements and campaigning to keep a rival Web browser from consumers. Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890 as a response to Standard Oil and other large industrial combinations that were restricting competition. Microsoft wrote that the judge's findings were wrong, noting it ``respectfully disagrees with many of the Court's findings of fact and believes they are unsupported by the record.' Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft said it lacked monopoly power because it faces competition and is unable to raise its prices unilaterally. It argued that even if it assumed that the judge was right, it still operated in compliance with the law. But that strategy gives Microsoft the difficult job of telling Jackson that his 207-page findings of fact were based on an erroneous assumption and should be reconsidered. ``This is a long shot for them, but I think it's one that it would only be reasonable for them to take,' Hovenkamp said of Microsoft and its lawyers. As the court case has continued, the two sides have also tried to settle the case with the help of an appellate court judge in Chicago, working in a private capacity. But there have been no indications of progress and the two sides may be at almost the end of that road. That would put the decision squarely back in Jackson's lap. The judge has invited outside experts to help him, including Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor on whose opinion he has in the past relied. Lessig recently offered a road map to help Jackson avoid running afoul of a 1998 appeals court decision, which said Microsoft had a right to design software any way it wanted under a 1995 agreement with the government. The government contended, unsuccessfully, that the legal agreement -- known as a consent decree -- prohibited Microsoft from tying two products together. The products in question were its Windows operating system and its Internet Explorer Web browser. During much of the 1990s, Microsoft battled Netscape Communications for the lion's share of the market for Web browsers to peruse the Internet. The government has contended that Microsoft used illegal and unfair tactics in that competition with Netscape, which has since been acquired by America Online Inc. Lessig said the appellate court never considered the broader question of whether bundling those two programs together violated the nation's antitrust laws. That leaves Jackson free to find such a violation if he chooses, Lessig said. There is ``no reason to read an opinion interpreting a consent decree as interpreting the contours of antitrust law,' Lessig wrote.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (38227)	2/21/2000 1:21:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

SUNW solution: Low performance for 5x the price. No wonder these guys are putting out all the disinformation. They are probably calling Jackson's chambers hourly. JFD microsoft.com

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (38227)	2/21/2000 4:37:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Maybe Bauer was looking for the lesser of two evils? JMHO.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (38227)	2/23/2000 10:44:00 PM
From: blankmind	Respond to of 74651

1st: MSFT needs a Republican, pro-business, pro-American Administration; & I'll vote for any Republican over Al Gore 2nd: Abortions are like Drugs. You can't pass a law against either to stop them. The answer is personal choice to do the right thing. 3rd: McCain is for the school voucher - for any school - including religious. Do you think religious schools will treat unborn children like the Gov't run schools do? 4th: George Sr. collaborated with the Dems against the Republican minority to push thru all sorts of crap; inclduing tax hikes. Sorry, but George W. talks about compassionate conservatism, & I haven't heard of one leftist program he'd make a dent in.