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: The Duke of URL© who wrote (38612)	2/26/2000 1:30:00 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Duke: Thanks, any further summaries would be extremely welcome. Re. this "crime", I would still agree with the DOJ on the boxmaker issue. To point 1, just terminology; whether it's a "violation" or a "crime" is irrelevant, there will still be a remedy. It seems self-evident that consumer harm would result if MSFT used its power to pressure manufacturers into not building devices that incorporate other competing OSes. That's how I get past points 2 and 3. To point 4, I agree that MSFT's monopoly is not illegal, but I don't see how copyright has any bearing on the exclusion issue. To point 5, agreed, but again it doesn't bear directly on the exclusion issue. If you are a monopoly, you lose some control over these business arrangements, and specifically I believe you're not allowed to threaten to withhold the product in question for any reason you see fit. I know for a fact that MSFT did exactly this to several overseas boxmakers a few years ago. MSFT to boxmaker X: "If you agree to build network computers, we will not sell you the Windows OS on which 99% of your business depends.". MSFT to boxmaker Y: "If you build even one Linux box, your price for the Windows OS on which 99% of your business depends will be double that of your competitors, even if you continue to sell the same or greater volume of Windows-based machines." I can't believe that's allowed by the anti-trust laws, but I'm no lawyer. It's certainly unsportsmanlike and it's the kind of behaviour that's made MSFT so many enemies. Needs to stop in my view. MSFT doesn't need to win that way. Perhaps Balmer can put a "kindler, gentler" face on the Redmond giant.

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (38612)	2/26/2000 5:52:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

Duke: Thank you very much for your summary of the points. Everyone who claims they understand this thing should avail themselves of the documents available on the MSFT site including the transcripts of the trial. Regarding Lessig's comments DeBoise suggested to the judge that he should only heed his comments where they are prejudicial to MSFT. Debating with VG is really pointless as she doesn't understand the discipline of the whole case law thing. JFD