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: TTOSBT who wrote (41796)	4/12/2000 11:16:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

TTOSBT - The issue that most concerned me was not the practices themselves. It is true to say that everyone did what MSFT did, as much as they could - but none of those other companies was MSFT. I have had this debate many times in a different context. I have several small children. My 3 year old is likely to take a toy with the promise to "share later" and then refuse to share. She may hit her older siblings when they try and enforce the original "agreement". But I regard this as semi-acceptable behavior for her - at least she is discussing rules of engagement around the use of the toys. The exact same behavior by my six year old son is not acceptable. First, he's a lot bigger, so if he decides to do some hitting, he has the ability to land a "nuclear strike" on a three year old. He also knows better - he understands that a verbal contract has consequences, and if he says he will share "later", then he will have to share when later comes around. Many of MSFT's behaviors were perfectly fine when they were the upstart underdog - and probably one of the reasons they survived. Even as a company which had developed a broader range of products and significant market clout, they could have justified those practices. But as they shifted into a more dominant role, they had the obligation to do some self-regulation, and to refrain from "beating up on the younger kids"... I even heard a little of this in Ballmer's comments. Unfortunately, a company culture is a little harder to change than an individual's behavior, and even if management had started serious efforts to change back in the mid-90s when the DOJ first started taking interest, it would have been a slow process to actually change what was happening on the ground. I believe that top MSFT management "gets it" and has for some time now, and that changes are working their way down into the organization, partly through change, and partly as the older MSFT "movers and shakers" leave, taking their notions of how to do business along with them. I have never thought that the DOJ "got it" - the case they prosecuted and the positions they took just seemed to have little to do with the issues. I initially thought maybe this was like prosecuting Al Capone on tax evasion - prosecute the case you can win. But after watching the whole circus pretty closely, I have come to the conclusion that the DOJ people really do think the case is about the issues they are raising. In a way this makes it easier for MSFT - since it is obvious that the DOJ does not really understand what is at stake and what happened, the trial and subsequent remedies turn into some kind of strange sideshow - as long as the DOJ pretends that those are the issues, MSFT will pretend to defend against them, and the public will pretend to have an opinion, while the real business happens on a completely different plane. The risk, of course, is that the "play" will actually intersect the real business.

To: TTOSBT who wrote (41796)	4/12/2000 11:36:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

tt, first of all msft has bought or taken from somewhere else most of what they sell. most innovative? not even. their os is a defacto monopoly. let me give you an example. if i took over 100% of the oil supply i would have a defacto monopoly. I WOULDN'T FORCE YOU TO BUY MY GAS! YOU COULD WALK EVERYWHERE YOU GO. THAT IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. but a painful one. just like using linux is a painful alternative for the VAST MAJORITY of os users now. clearly, very clearly, msft had their cross hairs on netscape and used their defacto monopoly os to attact them. that, my friend, is illegal. being a monopoly isn't. using monopoly status to beat back competition is illegal. msft got what they deserve and i suspect much worse is coming down the pipe.