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: SC who wrote (38337)	2/22/2000 7:59:00 PM
From: taxman	Respond to of 74651

more on gates/rockefeller regards February 22, 2000 Judge Compares Microsoft, Rockefeller By Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The judge in Microsoft's antitrust trial on Tuesday likened the software giant to the sweeping Standard Oil monopoly, which was broken up by government trust busters nearly 90 years ago. In a further blow to Microsoft Corp., District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he saw little difference between the Windows operating system used on most personal computers and the 19th Century oil monopoly of tycoon John D. Rockefeller. ``Mr. Rockefeller had fee simple (absolute) control over his oil,' Jackson told Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) lawyer, John Warden. ``I don't really see a distinction.' The U.S. Justice Department and 19 states have accused Microsoft of illegally abusing its monopoly in Windows to prevent competition and preserve its dominance. Jackson compared Microsoft to Standard Oil during a discussion with Microsoft lead lawyer John Warden, who argued the company may impose restrictive contracts on computer makers and others because it has protection under copyright laws. ``Copyright does not protect the conduct with which your company is charged,' Jackson told Warden at a hearing to help him determine whether Microsoft's action violates the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 -- a law prompted in large part by the abuses of the Standard Oil trust. On November 5, at the end of the first phase in the trial, Jackson found that Microsoft held monopoly power and used it to harm consumers, rivals and other companies but he stopped short of any legal conclusions. If Jackson finds Microsoft broke the law, the trial will enter a third phase for Jackson to determine what remedies he should apply. A final decision then would be likely in October. FIRST BIG U.S. ANTITRUST CASE INVOKED Jackson's invocation of Standard Oil echoed the first big antitrust case in the United States. Standard Oil at one time controlled 90 percent of the U.S. oil market and was sued in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt's administration. But in 1911 the Supreme Court split the company into 30 separate firms. Because the focus of the hearing was to decide the law, much of the day was consumed in arguing which laws and court decisions apply to the facts determined by Jackson. David Boies, for the federal government, offered quotations from the judge's findings of fact and quotations from Supreme Court decisions, arguing that high court standards make Microsoft's actions illegal. ``Microsoft never tells us what is the Supreme Court case that is most like theirs.' Boies said. Boies said Microsoft induced and threatened Internet service providers and computer makers to shut off the two most important marketing avenues for Netscape Navigator, a rival to Microsoft in Web browsers to view the Internet. Netscape was later acquired by America Online Inc. (AOL.N). ``Look at this conduct through the lens of Supreme Court principle,' Boies said, arguing the Sherman act prohibits conduct with no legitimate purpose but to exclude rivals. MICROSOFT SAYS 1998 OPINION SUPPORTIVE Warden said a 1998 District of Columbia appeals court decision that threw out a decision by Jackson in an earlier case was supportive of Microsoft's position. Warden said the case made it clear that Microsoft had a right to integrate its Internet Explorer browser into its Windows operating system. The company says the integration improved the product but the government has said it forced Explorer on Windows users. Boies replied that the appellate court decision may not apply: ``The court of appeals itself recognized the fragile and incomplete record it was working with.' Kevin O'Connor, an assistant attorney general from Wisconsin, appearing on behalf of the 19 states, said the judge should rule against Microsoft. He said it would ``send the unmistakable message that no firm -- and no individual no matter how rich or powerful -- is above the law.' Warden said the judge should rule for Microsoft to help consumers get better products at lower prices. Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.