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: Larry S. who wrote (39820)	3/25/2000 3:01:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 74651

Larry -- I buy a new one (MICRONs now) about every 9 - 12 months. Love the speed and can transfer everything in memory,, now that 27 gig is inexpensive there is more space than I'll ever use...

To: Larry S. who wrote (39820)	3/25/2000 4:10:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 74651

By David Lawsky WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - After nearly four months of fruitless talks, Microsoft Corp.<MSFT.O> and the U.S. government face a moment of truth next week when a judge rules on whether the firm violated antitrust laws -- a decision expected to go against the software giant. The government and Microsoft remain far apart after Microsoft offered to settle the case by making some changes in its conduct, but stiffened its resolve to refuse restructuring, those familiar with the talks said. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has pushed the parties to reach a conclusion, calling on another federal judge to act as an outside mediator. But that mediator, U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Richard Posner of Chicago, has been unable to bridge the differences. That means the battle, which began with a suit in 1998 filed by the Justice Department and 19 states, will resume in court. Jackson gave the two sides a deadline of Tuesday before he hands down his conclusions of law, in which all sides expected him to find that Microsoft violated antitrust laws. "I don't agree with that, but that's where I think he is going," said Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, a staunch supporter of Microsoft's viewpoint. Jackson has already found Microsoft holds monopoly power and abused it in dealings with rivals, customers and other companies. Much of the case centered on Microsoft's "browser war" with Netscape Communications. Netscape at one time dominated the market for browsers to peruse the World Wide Web. Microsoft saw Netscape as a threat to its dominance of personal computer operating systems, the judge found. After Microsoft was unable to persuade Netscape to stop competing, the Redmond, Wash., firm bundled its own browser together with its operating system, withheld crucial information from Netscape, and pressured computer makers which needed its operating system to help crush Netscape, the judge found. Netscape's market share and stock price dropped and it eventually sold out to America Online. Jackson found that Microsoft acted in a similar way in dealing with others, such as Apple Computer, Intel, RealNetworks and IBM. Once the judge rules that Microsoft violated the law, he will have to decide on a remedy - a process that will likely take many more months. A final decision is expected around October, experts say. Microsoft has pledged to appeal an adverse ruling to higher courts. That leaves plenty of time for talks. Cases can be settled at any point, as the public was reminded a few weeks ago when a disabilities case settled while awaiting argument before the Supreme Court. But if Microsoft never settles it will be playing a high- stakes game. Any company that loses an antitrust case against the government faces big threats from private antitrust suits. Plaintiffs suing Microsoft could invoke an antitrust law known as the Clayton Act to rely on Jackson's findings of fact that Microsoft is a monopolist. They would need to prove only that they suffered damages from Microsoft, sidestepping the difficult task of proving the company a monopolist. If plaintiffs won, Microsoft would be liable for triple damages under antitrust law. ((david.lawsky@reuters.com, 202 898 8463, washington bureau)) REUTERS * end of story * * end of story *