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 (38378)	2/23/2000 3:06:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"..a breakup, probably along OS/applications/services dividing lines.." Opening the code would only result in a nightmare for users who are stuck with code that less-equipt companies than Microsoft have tweaked. Ditto for the idea of splitting Microsoft into multiple OS groups. Splitting MS into OS/apps/services would not seem to be harmful to MS (or shareholders), but what would that accomplish? MS-Word would still be able to show HTML pages. The internet is interwoven throughout software products in nearly every catagory. I personally could care less whether or not MS gave Internet Explorer 5.0 with their OS, since I use Netscape Navigator. Regardless of what one's personal feelings on MSFT or the trial may be, MSFT today kissed its 200-day sma: bigcharts.com In the last couple of years, MSFT has never stayed at the 200-day sma very long, and buying at the 200 sma has been a good investment. Actual results may vary, etc. :-)

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (38378)	2/23/2000 8:10:00 AM
From: SC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I'm not a lawyer but I think that the copyright argument was inserted to allow an argument on appeal that opening the source code is not a constitutionally sustainable remedy. The argument that the microsoft lawyer was making was that taking of property by the government without compensation is not allowed due to a clause in one of the amendements in the bill of rights of the constitution of the united states(I think it's the 4th amendment). That being the case, theoretically at least, a law without the weight of a subsequent constitutional amendment can't over-ride this right granted by the constitution (at least that's the way it's supposed to work). You never know for sure until you get the Supreme Courts interpretation of how the constitution applies to the situation. There have been many instances where the logic of how the constitution applies has been so twisted that it appears that the Supreme Court can do whatever they want (most examples are related to states rights that were supposed to include everything not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution. The feds have grabbed many powers not granted to them by arguing that the interstate commerce clause makes whatever issue is at stake a federal issue and not a state issue.). The judge surely knows this and was simply playing a legal poker bluff when he said that he didn't understand the argument. The judge would desperately like this to be settled as it is a lose-lose-lose-lose (microsoft-judge-country-consumer) situation for which he wants no part of the blame. Steve