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: saukriver who wrote (40236)	4/1/2000 11:47:00 AM
From: SC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

It's been fairly obvious, from the beginning of the trial, that Microsoft expected the judge to side with the plaintiffs. They knew that they didn't have a snowballs chance in hell in front of the judge selected to try the case. Microsoft entered every conceivable argument into the record so that they would have as many avenues as possible to get the judges verdict overturned on appeal. If the verdict is overturned on appeal the judges findings are null and void and Res Judicata would no longer apply. It is my opinion that microsoft would like to settle on terms that are acceptable to both sides. If they can't get terms that are acceptable to them they are fully prepared to take the case to the appellate court where they have a better chance of getting the case dismissed, sent back for re-trial, or possibly sent back to a lower court with explicit instructions as to what the appeals court wants in the way of changes in the rulings made during the trial. The real question is what are microsofts chances on appeal. Steve

To: saukriver who wrote (40236)	4/1/2000 1:36:00 PM
From: axp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

RE: After all, Microsoft Legal didn't even have the good sense pre-litigation to implement a corporate policy that disposed of old email. It was my understanding that maintaining an email archive was a requirement from the last time they were in court. I'd expect the emails were deleted from the personal mailboxes - some of these people deal with hundreds a messages a day. While execs don't necessarily have the same rules, MSFT and most companies enforce maximum mailbox size of x MB. I hit my company's 50MB limit about once a month and have to go clean stuff out. I'd bet the emails at the trial were extracted from a corporate archive they have been forced to maintain.

To: saukriver who wrote (40236)	4/1/2000 10:23:00 PM
From: greedsgd_2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

One judge will not destroy MSFT. This is a complicated case, its not clear in many instances what is fact and what are legal interpretations of fact. MSFT may have some or all elements of a monopoly. Whether the judge labeled legal interpretations - as facts, will form the basis for much of this appeal. As such, the "facts" cannot simply be assumed. MSFT can manage any level of litigation. Most of these private tort style suits will be in the docket for yrs, before they are heard. The ultimate question is whether MSFT actions have been a net plus for consumers or have been a net detriment to consumers. This idea that innovation has been stifled is absurd. Would you consider CSCO a de facto monopoly? Does CSCO use its power and size that may at times act to the detriment of competitors? Should CSCO be broken up?