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: tiquer who wrote (29969)	4/3/2000 8:31:00 PM
From: fuzzymath	Respond to of 64865

We used to fear Japan, where profits were given up for the sake of greater market share. MSFT wanted market share. Correctly, it knew that 95% wasn't enough to be a monopoly. It wanted to be a monopoly, just as the Hunts wanted to corner the silver market in the 1980s. But technology is ever changing, so it was a quite stupid goal to try to monopolize that. It's not like the railroads buying up land in the West, etc...

To: tiquer who wrote (29969)	4/3/2000 9:56:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

You need to read this... Here's the part I like. If Microsoft is "arrogant", what do you call a judge who chooses to ignore an inconvenient appeals court decision against him with the same defendant and on the same issue? That part of the decision is very like to go bye-bye. ============================ The plaintiffs allege that Microsoft's combination of Windows and Internet Explorer by contractual and technological artifices constitute unlawful tying to the extent that those actions forced Microsoft's customers and consumers to take Internet Explorer as a condition of obtaining Windows. While the Court agrees with plaintiffs, and thus holds that Microsoft is liable for illegal tying under õ 1, this conclusion is arguably at variance with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a closely related case, and must therefore be explained in some detail. Whether the decisions are indeed inconsistent is not for this Court to say.