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: taxman who wrote (40267)	4/1/2000 10:22:00 PM
From: John Chen	Respond to of 74651

taxman,re:"as harsh as a court-ordered breakup". There maybe initial shock. I believe when that happened, WS will find something positive after the initial decline. It's like the 'interest rate scenario' the last several years. WS always tell you 'worry about the fed' and then the market down and then when the fed did something then WS says: 'screw you', let's continue with the party.

To: taxman who wrote (40267)	4/1/2000 10:42:00 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: Reaction After listening to the CC it seems very clear that the reason the settlement talks fell apart was because the plantiffs (DoJ and the 19 state AGs) couldn't get on the same page when it came to settlement proposals. MSFT was very demur when asked about this but if this is true then this whole farce may be about to blow up in DoJ's face. When Jackson predictably rules against MSFT next week the next step is for plaintiffs to ask the court to impose a remedy. But the fact that they couldn't agree in four months of settlement talks raises the possibility that they will similarly be unable to articulate a coherent request for relief. If this happens then plaintiffs will be in the embarrassing position of having "won" but unable to do anything useful with their "victory". Instead we'll have endless squabbling among the "victors" over what they should ask the court to impose by was of a settlement order. In many ways this would be the best possible outcome for MSFT because it would make painfully obvious the true political nature of this whole sorry chapter in the history of antitrust law. And if this happens we can be sure it will figure in the fall presidential campaign. In any event, after the theatrics of the ruling itself this case will certainly drag on for years to come and will shortly fade into the background as investors refocus on MSFT's business fundamentals.

To: taxman who wrote (40267)	4/3/2000 4:26:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 74651

"said the mediator, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner of Chicago.``I believed when I undertook this assignment that it was in the national interest that the case be settled, and I believe it even more strongly today.'" -------- Wait a minute. "National Interest"? But I thought that Microsoft had bludgeoned PC makers, effectively forcing them to buy the inferior Win95/98/NT at inflated prices, when they could have been offering the superior and cheaper Linux/Netscape? Or was it that MS didn't charge enough for Internet Explorer...I must be getting forgetful. I have an idea for the perfect sanction against Microsoft: Simply ban sales of Win98/NT/2000 to computer OEMs. The honorable Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson could simply issue a decree that from now on there would be a "free market", that is, one that is free of the much hated Windows OS. PC makers would then be free to ship Linux (or any other OS of their true free choice!) on every single PC, together with Netscape Navigator (or any other browser except IE). Now if the government could only muster the courage to do this right thing on behalf of computer consumers world-wide, surely we would live in the closest thing to utopia that is possible.