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: Charles Tutt who wrote (38374)	2/23/2000 2:20:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

"However, I believe I read that the judge commented copyright was not a defense to the antitrust claims." I believe I read that also. So, I wonder how that ties in with his absurd comparison of MSFT and Standard Oil? Standard Oil was selling a commodity, while MSFT is selling a copyrighted product. For the judge to say that copyrights are invalid for companies deemed to be a monopoly is equally absurd, and Microsoft should stand firm for their rights to their intellectual property. This Judge Jackson's thought processes get curiouser and curiouser. All this talk of "illegal tying" is dumb and dumber: Is the Judge next going to say that MSFT has to strip out the internet capabilities of Windows 2000, in order to give a lift to Linux's prospects? This trial as turned into little more than a corporate daycare center.

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (38374)	2/24/2000 8:11:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

RE: I think I understand your point. However, I believe I read that the judge commented copyright was not a defense to the antitrust claims. Charles, I'm not quite sure what the Judge meant, because the way you state it, it sounds like, "what ever you say, you loose". :)) A Copyright IS a legally protected monopoly. ------------------------------------------- From the MS sur-reply brief: Plaintiffs [DOJ] rely on Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1094 (1998), and Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994), to support their contention that Microsoft's exercise of its intellectual property rights may violate the antitrust laws. (Pls. Reply at 28.) The antitrust laws, however, do not negate the rights of copyright holders. See Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In Kodak, the court found "no reported case in which a court has imposed antitrust liability for a unilateral refusal to sell or license a patent or copyright." 125 F.3d at 1216. [emp add]