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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fuzzymath who wrote (29967)	4/3/2000 8:08:00 PM
From: David Kelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Name one $29 to $49 product that you can walk in WalMart and get for free everyday? Hurry up!<g> Exactly the point. NONE! The really stupid part is that MSFT even admitted that their plan was to kill Netscape because a browser could be used instead of Windows. In a way we are wasting our time here. The judge has ruled strongly in this case based upon his findings in law. He was assisted by Judge Posner who is widely seen as a libertine in anti-trust. In addition some of the most conservative legal minds and think think tanks have come down, to peoples surprise, on the governments side. MSFT was not happy building excellent OSes they decided ruling the world was more interesting. david

To: fuzzymath who wrote (29967)	4/3/2000 8:13:00 PM
From: tiquer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

You need to read this...I'm not so sure that you will comprehend what it says though... good luck... usvms.gpo.gov Viewing Microsoft's conduct as a whole also reinforces the conviction that it was predacious. Microsoft paid vast sums of money, and renounced many millions more in lost revenue every year, in order to induce firms to take actions that would help enhance Internet Explorer's share of browser usage at Navigator's expense. Id. ô 139. These outlays cannot be explained as subventions to maximize return from Internet Explorer. Microsoft has no intention of ever charging for licenses to use or distribute its browser. Id. ôô 137-38. Moreover, neither the desire to bolster demand for Windows nor the prospect of ancillary revenues from Internet Explorer can explain the lengths to which Microsoft has gone. In fact, Microsoft has expended wealth and foresworn opportunities to realize more in a manner and to an extent that can only represent a rational investment if its purpose was to perpetuate the applications barrier to entry. Id. ôô 136, 139-42. Because Microsoft's business practices "would not be considered profit maximizing except for the expectation that . . . the entry of potential rivals" into the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems will be "blocked or delayed," Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 786 F.2d 424, 427 (D.C. Cir. 1986), Microsoft's campaign must be termed predatory. Since the Court has already found that Microsoft possesses monopoly power, see supra, õ I.A.1, the predatory nature of the firm's conduct compels the Court to hold Microsoft liable under õ 2 of the Sherman Act. Roger