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 (40472)	4/2/2000 11:36:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

saukriver, I don't think MSFT wants to talk about appealing the procedural aspects of the trial just ahead of a ruling by the judge. Might as well do it afterwards---there is no rush. I have not read this reason as a basis for appeals except in that MSNBC.com article. However, i expect to read a lot about it either after the ruling or after the remedy phase. One has to think about what Jackson consider to be the market MSFT has a monopoly. He excluded Linux and Apple. Should he not have consulted more experts or allowed more witnesses to be sure of this point? Obviously if MSFT has no monopoly in the overall market, the facts would indicate only that MSFT is a tough competitor and a key "supplier" to certain PC companies. He is now trying to appeal proof his case knowing full well that the appeals court does not seem share his vision. It would be hard overturn the facts but they can even finds ways to do that. Of course they have a way out to ensure we get a fair trial---sent it back allowing more witnesses or as many as MSFT deems necessary. That would the same way IBM defended its case.