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: Joe S Pack who wrote (40778)	4/3/2000 7:29:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 74651

Nat, Re: Here is the official ruling. Thank you for the link. By just browsing through it quickly, it seems that it is all revolving around the 'browser' market. Is there any legal expert here can tell me how can a consumer claim damage here as Microsoft never charged a penny for its browser ? Gary

To: Joe S Pack who wrote (40778)	4/4/2000 4:37:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 74651

The bald hypocrisy of Judge Jackson and the DOJ is revealed in the Conclusions of Law released on April 3rd; wherein the US Dept of Justice applauds monopolists and companies seeking to expand or maintain their monopolies, specifically in the "Web Browser Market"; Direct quotes from the Conclusions of Law: "In addition to condemning actual monopolization, õ 2 of the Sherman Act declares that it is unlawful for a person or firm to "attempt to monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ." 15 U.S.C. õ 2.... "In order for liability to attach for attempted monopolization, a plaintiff generally must prove "(1) that the defendant has engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with (2) a specific intent to monopolize," and (3) that there is a "dangerous probability" that the defendant will succeed in achieving monopoly power.... "Even if the first two elements of the offense are met, however, a defendant may not be held liable for attempted monopolization absent proof that its anticompetitive conduct created a dangerous probability of achieving the objective of monopoly power in a relevant market.... "At the time...Navigator's share of browser usage stood well above seventy percent, and no other browser enjoyed more than a fraction of the remainder...at that point, no potential third-party competitor could either claim to rival Netscape's stature as a browser company..." end quotes. I see nothing critical of Netscape; on the contrary, actually I see that the Judge Jackson seems angry that Netscape has not been able to maintain their monopoly status in the browser market. It appears that he applauds monopolists, and companies seeking to strengthen their monopolies. This Conclusions of Law is a virtual carbon copy of the original Intent to File paper posted by the DOJ. The "conclusions" were reached in July of 1998. The judge is as delusional as ever. He still thinks that Navigator was destined to replace Win95/98/NT/2000. Although he admits that, in the absense of MSFT's efforts to reduce Navigator's market share, there is no proof that Navigator (or Sun's JVM) would have evolved into Operating Systems. Thanks for the link, Nat.