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: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (40261)	4/1/2000 8:24:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

From the latest on Reuters ,, ".. Once a judge finds a company holds monopoly power, that often opens the door to private lawsuits. Private plaintiffs can recover triple damages and legal fees and need only show that the company illegally threw its weight around if the government has already won a judgment of monopoly power..."

To: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (40261)	4/2/2000 12:07:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The question is can this decision be used in the lawsuits even if it is appealed by MSFT? An analysis I saw a couple of weeks ago said that point is unclear, but there is some precedence that says that it can't be. If this is true, then when the case is sent back down, as I believe every other anti-Microsoft ruling by this judge has been, the DOJ and the 19 midgets will be in a better mood to settle and the decision will no longer be valid. If the ruling can be used during the appeal process MSFT is going to be sucking some wind and makes their lack of offering-up a reasonable settlement to DOJ even more perplexing. As I posted before I believe that Microsoft was being offered its choice of executioner as a settlement. According to one of the stories I read tonight each of the state attorneys general had veto power over any settlement (I didn't know this or I never would have hoped for a settlement), meaning that only an unconditional Microsoft surrender would have been accepted. With Microsoft's record against this judge in the appeals courts they'd be fools to agree to a settlement that gave their opponent everything and didn't yield something back to them.