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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (38377)	2/23/2000 2:46:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I don't think the judge said the copyright was invalid. Just that it couldn't be asserted improperly (i.e. in contravention of antitrust law). I haven't followed the trial all that closely, but I haven't noticed anything I thought was particularly "curious." I suspect the final result will be a breakup, probably along OS/applications/services dividing lines, because I can't figure out what other remedy would "work." The consent decree didn't seem to. I doubt opening the code would. I doubt the Supreme Court will be interested to hear an appeal. JMHO, and not a legal opinion.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (38377)	2/24/2000 9:33:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

DEK: Nice post. That is the whole nut. Standard Oil bought up a limited resource not of their own invention. This is monopolistic. They were also deemed to have restricted the availability of "oil" to the consumer ( a point that is really unsubstantiated to this day). One of the few ways the courts allow a monopoly to be maintained is through invention. MSFT has not restricted the supply of brains to create competitive software. Linus Torvald is busy proving that point as we speak. This whole case is absolutely a disgusting piece of extortion that is being funded by the taxpayer. I wonder how many people will take the time to familiarize themselves with the law surrounding this case by going to this site microsoft.com rather than opining through their arses without regard to legal precedent as has been the want of the good judge (aka senior prosecutor). JFD