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 (38430)	2/23/2000 9:25:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

The "points:" " A. What ever happened to judicial neutrality? This guy has foreordained the trial's conclusion, since we all know what happened to Standard Oil. Who does he think he is, Ida Tarbell?" First, that doesn't even parse very well, so I'm unclear what I'm supposed to address. But I've seen no evidence the judge wasn't neutral _at the start of the trial_. Of course, as the evidence developed, so probably did his view of the facts. But that's the natural course of events. You might also consider that judges are sometimes especially hard at trial _on the side they favor_ to avoid any appearance of favoritism when they eventually rule. " B. If he takes his historical analogy seriously, he will do nothing, since most historians agree that by the time Standard Oil was broken up, natural economic developments had already overcome Standard Oil's monopoly. " If he takes his judicial role seriously, he won't consider hypotheses like that unless submitted into and supported by the evidence. BTW, I tend to agree with the basis of the point -- Microsoft is likely to be irrelevant by the time this is all over. " C. In at least one important sense his analogy rings true: the Standard Oil case was certainly not about harm to the consumers. It was about extreme envy of an individual and unhappy competitors who couldn't beat him at his own game." That's one person's opinion. See "B" and its associated comments. " E. Rockefeller was made even wealthier by the break-up, as he then owned substantial stakes in what became Exxon, Sonoco, Mobil, etc. For those wishing Bill Gates ill, this is not an outcome they should hope for." So where's the beef? " F. $93!!!! With all these good products inbound? I ran out of money to buy more MSFT! " Clearly your buddy is impaired by biases of his own. There. I've addressed your "points." They're baloney. And I'm not impressed by your friend's alleged credentials. Deal with it. JMHO.