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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Burry who wrote (2206)	2/24/2000 10:35:00 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

Mike, I totally agreed with your ORCL buy and disagreed with Apple. So I hope you understand where I am coming from. >I think it can be argued that Intel, Apple, and >Oracle and even Compaq have shown a resilience over > time that Microsoft, Dell, and Cisco have not. and this statement is a bunch of baloney. I know what you mean, but you are wrong. Maybe you weren't there when Dr. DOS was going to kill MS-DOS. Maybe you weren't there when OS/2, GEM and Quaterdeck's DesQview were better than Win 3.0. Maybe you forgot how people derided Win95 when it was introduced. Maybe you don't remember the time when MS Word was at the best 3rd name in Word processors, Excel - second in spreadsheets. So don't tell me that Microsoft showed less resilience than Oracle. Oracle had approximately the same number of contenders for the crown as Microsoft. If you gonna argue that Microsoft was "protected" by IBM PC franchise, the same applies to Intel. Now Cisco... Raise the hands the ones who remember when Bay Networks was the force to kill Cisco. When 3Com + Cascade (?) + Ascend were going to put Cisco out of business using switches instead of routers. Or even before that... That's not resilience? Hmmm... I won't defend Dell - I don't understand it, but for the other ones your statement does not hold water. Jurgis - who never bought any of these stocks

To: Michael Burry who wrote (2206)	2/25/2000 1:07:00 AM
From: James Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4691

<<Microsoft, IMO, is not a Buffett stock because it has yet to show me it can evolve. It is very possible to me that a new operating system can evolve to destroy a lot of what Microsoft has worked for. Sure, they have some nice online properties, but those are losing money hand over fist. I think it can be argued that Intel, Apple, and Oracle and even Compaq have shown a resilience over time that Microsoft, Dell, and Cisco have not. I wonder if you can see where I'm coming from.>> Interesting argument. Never thought of it like that, but you're probably right. The magic about true Buffett stocks is that THEY DON'T HAVE TO EVOLVE - what Buffett looks for are businesses where what is important does not change. Wrigley and Coke are the quintessential examples of that. Disney might be a little different, but one could argue that they've evolved too much and forgotten their core game. Washington Post is facing a new "operating system" and there is probably more risk there than there has been for 50 years. Philip Morris was once one until the big risk caught up with them. And this circles right back to the never resolved debate as to whether a tech stock can ever be as rock-solid as Coke or Wrigley. I don't think any can, but I can also only think of two non-tech stocks which are completely untouchable. (and before we get into the Coke has gone down debate - obviously you've got to buy them at the right price - neither is there yet and I own neither, but both are getting closer) In the next bear market, Buffett will buy Wrigley - the whole thing if the family will sell - for $50 a share. Two weeks later the price of gum will go up a nickel and profits will double. Put that on your 2001 calendar.

To: Michael Burry who wrote (2206)	2/28/2000 12:05:00 AM
From: jhg_in_kc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4691

ALL, I think this patent may make INFOSPACE another "toll bridge" a la RAMBUS or if you want to be curde a perma "leech" on internet commerce once a business buys its service. InfoSpace Awarded Patent for Commerce Infrastructure Services on the Internet and Wireless Devices Patent Covers Private Label Commerce Solutions and for Tracking the Purchase of Products, Services and Information on the Internet and On Wireless Devices; Over 30 Patents Are Currently Pending for Other Commerce, Communication and Information Infrastructure Services REDMOND, Wash., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- InfoSpace.com (Nasdaq: INSP - news), a leading global provider of information and commerce infrastructure services for wireless devices, merchants and Web sites, today announced that it has been awarded a patent for commerce infrastructure services on the Internet and wireless devices. InfoSpace.com is defining the standards to accelerate the worldwide market for conducting commerce and interacting with information directly on wireless devices. (Photo: newscom.com ) On January 18, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office recognized the innovations made by InfoSpace.com by granting the Company U.S. Patent No. 6,016,504 entitled ``Method and System for Tracking the Purchase of a Product and Services over the Internet.' The patent also includes various aspects of co-branding transactions involving commerce and information services. For example, the patent provides solutions to such problems as returning a customer to a co-branded Web site following the customer's completion of a merchant transaction. In addition, it ensures that the co-branded Web site receives adequate compensation for driving traffic to associated merchants. ``With this patent we are finally being recognized as the Company that pioneered the concept of private-labeling commerce and information infrastructure services for wireless devices and Web sites,' said Naveen Jain, chairman and CEO, InfoSpace.com. ``We continue to build on our advanced technology platform and extend our competitive edge as the leader in providing infrastructure services.'