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: PMS Witch who wrote (38608)	2/26/2000 12:20:00 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 74651

PMSW (or anyone): Do you have an understanding of the crux of the legal matters now pending? If so, would you be willing to share with me and the others on this forum? I'm trying to assess the risk as we enter the "verdict" and "sentencing" phases of the trial. What I am unable to glean from the reams of commentary is exactly what the menu of charges is. If the defendant in the dock was some Joe who'd knocked over a liquor store, you'd see a list of specific crimes e.g. "2nd degree murder", "armed robbery", etc. My current murky understanding of MSFT's list goes thusly: The company wields monopoly power in desktop OSes. On this point the judge and I agree. The monopoly was obtained through aggressive competition, but I don't think it's illegal per se. It is a necessary prerequisite to the crimes, though, just as "intent" is required for 1rst degree murder. Crime #1: bullying boxmakers by forcing them to pay per-unit prices for the MSFT OS on all boxes built, even if some of these shipped with a different OS. Threatening to withhold the OS or favourable pricing on the OS if boxmakers didn't toe the line, i.e. if they started building Linux boxes or network appliances that didn't use an MSFT OS. My assessment: if this isn't illegal, it ought to be. Mind you it's OK if you're not a monopoly, which MSFT had not been officially ruled to be until recently. Reasonable remedy: injunctions restraining the scope of business arrangements between MSFT and boxmakers. Crime #2: illegal tying of the IE browser to the OS, with attendant harm to consumer choice. My assessment: total bunkum. Browsers have become an essential element of all consumer OSes, you can't not have one. As for harm, the $0 price tag versus NSCP's $50 says it all. Harm to NSCP? That's why they call it competition. Are these correctly stated? Are there any others? For instance, I can't figure out if this one's on the table or not: Crime #3: overcharging consumers for OSes. My assessment: who does the judge think he's kidding? Very dangerous ground to be on, the entire software industry should be worried if the government starts trying to set pricing for software. And to boot isn't it true that the monopoly positions of both MSFT and INTC in PCs have been achieved in large measure because of low pricing (vs. Apple, who persued a premium-pricing strategy and lost)?