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: Valley Girl who wrote (38617)	2/26/2000 2:12:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

VG - re: 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 think you are referring to the testimony about Joachim Kempin's pressure of a German firm, who claimed that their DOS licensing costs doubled because they offered DR DOS as an alternative to DOS. No question that MSFT was heavy handed in that case, but in fact they did not change the licensing discount - they withdrew marketing funds that they had provided under a previous deal. MSFT's claim was that they did not want their marketing money spent on a campaign which claimed that DR DOS was as good as DOS as a base for Windows. MSFT's use of marketing funds as an incentive was an area where I thought they were out of bounds, but Intel used much the same tactics at that time. Intel quickly changed its tune when the practice came under scrutiny at MSFT... and I think the question of what marketing assistance MSFT or Intel provide is a harder area to discuss than pure license fees. If it turns out that marketing money is really a license discount in disguise, the case is more clear cut than if MSFT wants to give more marketing help to companies they perceive as friendly to them. I don't know what incident your "company X' refers to. I thought I had followed the trial pretty closely and do not remember any time when MSFT threatened to not sell Windows to a manufacturer.