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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JC Jaros who wrote (29582)	3/28/2000 6:00:00 AM
From: Tecinvestor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

I don't believe MSFT will settle this matter. Traditionally, there is little that can be done on appeal with a findings of fact since the trial court is deemed to be in the best position to view the demeanor of the parties and the witnesses. Unless there is a profound and egregious error on the facts by the trial judge (i.e., Judge Jackson), those findings will not be disturbed on appeal. I think Judge Jackson was wise to appoint a mediator in an effort to bring the parties together to attempt to resolve this matter. Initially, I thought that a potential settlement would have been reached because I believed that a breakup of the company was one of the remedies Judge Jackson could have ordered and I thought that would be enough of a deterrent to foster a settlement. However, I now feel that it is unlikely that a breakup will be ordered. Rather, I believe that Judge Jackson will order the disclosure of the source code, as well as other punitive sanctions. I believe MSFT may be willing to tolerate such a determination, and thus await the ruling, given its appellate remedies. The psychological impact of the forthcoming ruling by Judge Jackson will, I believe, have a profound effect on the MSFT stock, both short term and long term. The appeal in this instance will, as I understand it, not be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals but will go directly to the Supreme Court. Because of the novelty and complexity of the issue, with the likelihood of numerous amicus briefs being filed, I don't believe such an appeal will be heard for at least a year and will then take months to decide. I would guess we could be looking at the end of 2001 before the Supreme Court rules on this one. An issue as novel as this is always susceptible to reversal or modification on appeal. However, in the interim, damage will have been done to MSFT from the standpoint of the litigation's impact on MSFT stock price. There will be an explosion of class action and derivative suits, as well as actions from other aggrieved parties (i.e., Netscape). That having been said, I feel that the beneficiaries of all of this will be companies like SUNW. In the market place, SUNW will be percieved as the "winner" and MSFT as the "loser." Scott McNealy will have his day in the sun and will be able to say "I told you so" and "they got what they deserved." McNealy's image will be enhanced. Gates' image will be diminished. I have little doubt that SUNW's recent move is related, in part, to the forthcoming MSFT decision. I felt this way prior to Judge Jackson rendering his findings of fact (and bought more shares, accordingly) and I feel this way now. I believe a punitive ruling by Judge Jackson may, indeed, have a profound and significant effect on SUNW's share price. Many months ago I posted on the MSFT board that the best hedge against downward movement of MSFT stock in light of the pendency of the antitrust litigation was to buy SUNW stock. Needless to say, that position was not well received on the MSFT thread. Bottom line, if I had a position in MSFT right now and I wanted to preserve that position, I'd be buying SUNW long as a hedge. IMHO, SUNW is in a very good position to make a significant move right now. If Judge Jackson renders his conclusions of law (as I think he will), a move in SUNW's price to the $120 - $130 area would not surprise me. And then we'll get our split. Good luck to all SUNW longs. They won't need it! Good luck to all MSFT longs. They will! Tecinvestor

To: JC Jaros who wrote (29582)	3/28/2000 6:03:00 AM
From: High-Tech East	Respond to of 64865

<<You're nearly as out of step as George W Bush himself.>> ... finally, something we can agree on. <g> Ken Wilson

To: JC Jaros who wrote (29582)	3/28/2000 8:23:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Sorry, buddy, but I have read the entire findings of fact (sic). You realize the judge decreed that the market for x86 desktops was the industry that MSFT had monopolized, as if there were no Linux, Solaris, BEOS, DrDos, or any other OS for x86 or any other desktop microprocessor. You realize, of course, that every x86 owner had alternatives to Windows, but that they were just too dumb or lazy to use them. I have no interest in holding MSFT (except for a few sudden profitable trades to play the antitrust movements of the stock) because I think it is badly overpriced (like many other techs) but has no real franchise. The reason I expect the case to be booted if Bush takes over is because I followed the IBM case very closely until it was ditched by Reagan's DOJ. For a period I got express packages of the daily proceedings. They had IBM dead to rights and let them go because it simply got unmanageable. If MSFT had demanded a jury trial there would have been no findings of fact by now. They would still be teaching the jury antitrust economics. Unfortunately for them, they never had the chance to teach Jackson antitrust economics. Read his findings of fact if you want to challenge that statement.