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: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 8:33:00 PM
From: PMS Witch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The seven deadly sins ... 1- Anger 2- Lust 3- Greed 4- Avarice 5- Sloth 6- Pride 7- Gluttony If these were the pigeon-holes, where would the key players in this drama be slotted? Gates: Jackson: 6 Ballmer: 1 Reno: Klien: Hatch: McNealy: Case: Marc, Bark, & Clark: 4 Clinton: 2 Feel free to fill-in the blanks. Cheers, PW.

To: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 8:39:00 PM
From: David R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Well, I was in total agreement with you until the last paragraph. A parent's right to custody of their child is not negotiable. The "peaceful" protesters were holding a child against the wishes of his father. I do not care if they were praying or building bombs, what they were doing was against the law. If some of my relatives took posession of my child, and refused to return him to me, I would authorize the gov't to use what ever force necessary to safely return him home. A 6 year old is not capable of understanding the implications of political asylum, and is likely to say and do whatever those with gifts suggest. He was being used as a puppet and paraded before the press shamelessly. He was being pimped by the Cuban community in Miami. An unfortunate pawn in their struggle against Castro (I am not debating the merits of the struggle). The gov't, for once, showed some competance when carrying out their responsibility to uphold the law. Elian is where he belongs. It is unfortunate that the relatives who loved him so forced this showdown. What sort of country would allow a child to be seperated form his parents solely because of their political ideaology? Now can we stick to MSFT where clearly the govt is out of bounds.

To: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 9:12:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 74651

re: DOESN?T ANYONE ELSE CONSIDER THIS INSANE ?!?! 1. Among people who work for MSFT, or who are large shareholders, and maybe even among people who live in Seattle, your outraged innocence is probably a majority opinion. The rest of the country thinks of Microsoft as an arrogant monopolist. Have you been reading the Doonsbury cartoons? That expresses it well. You may think it's a silly spoof. Most people think it's only a slight exaggeration. I'm not saying that's fair, I'm just saying that's the popular opinion, and denial is not an effective response to that widely held opinion. 2. You're outraged. You're angry. You're shouting, "It's not fair!" OK. I guess your mother never told you, so I will: life isn't fair. Stop expecting it to be. Of course Microsoft's competitors (working through their home-state politicians, who probably got large contributions from those companies last time they ran for re-election) are trying to get the government to rewrite the rules to their advantage. That's just what the steel companies and the textile companies and the sugar industry and the memory-chip makers (I could go on and on) do all the time, to lock out foreign (and more efficient) competitors. It's a little harder when the competitor is a domestic company. But Washington State has only 2 Senators. 3. Whether it's an injustice or not is irrelevant. The question is: how do they get themselves out of this situation? How do they get a settlement that is acceptable to the government, and doesn't damage shareholder value? If they had focused on that question a year ago, instead of Holding Firm To Their Principles And Not Giving An Inch, then I wouldn't have been able to buy a lot of MSFT at 65-66 today, because the stock would be a lot higher. 4. The case was started because Microsoft's browser was being added to the OS, and the government saw a monopoly in the OS becoming a bigger monopoly. That's what they saw. It was Microsoft's job to respond to those concerns. Whether the concerns were real or not in irrelevant. 5. The government works at a speed far slower than the pace of change in software markets. That original cause may be gone. But the case has acquired a life of its own, everyone piling on. A pack of jackals will kill any member of their own pack who is wounded or ill, or just looks weak. Humans are sometimes that way, too.

To: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 9:38:00 PM
From: zyx1996	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

David, I could not agree more!!! Every shareholder should vote against Al Gore, and against Democrats. They are doing everything they can to distribute wealth for the poor. Zeren

To: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 9:39:00 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 74651

Since you asked for feedback... The question before the courts was not "What is the present and future status of Microsoft?" The question is "Did Microsoft, in various ways, abuse its power, in an effort to perpetuate market dominance?" There was ample evidence, credible evidence, in extensive testimony, that Microsoft did just that. I am not one of those who believe that Microsoft is the Great Satan. Many of the things that it has done are good. Articulating and realizing a vision for the PC and computing, and bringing some commonality to a fractured and diverse market are among the benefits Microsoft has brought to the computing world - admittedly, as much to its own benefit as ours. But there is no doubt in my mind that monopolistic acts were performed by Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft is now dealing with increased competition, and a less dominant position in the market is irrelevant. The question is: were Microsoft's past actions legal? Market dominance, free enterprise, competition: these concepts are one step from entreprenurial war, without law.

To: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 9:41:00 PM
From: KevRupert	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Hello Mr. Howe, I agree completely with your comments. (Other than your machine gun pointing at the 6-year old analogy!) In that case, I believe in protection for law enforcement. Reno had reasonable cause to believe that the law enforcement officers may be in trouble. But that's another story better argued on the salon site. I am from the Seattle area, and know many people who work at "msft", are retired from "msft" - at the age of 35, and have a significant amount of their net worth tied up in "msft". I know exactly what you are talking about. I like businesses that have intelligent founders, intelligent & innovative employees, aggressive business models & profitable business models. The one lesson that I have learned is that I will never vote for a Democrat! Republicans never would have allowed this to happen. Business & politics don't mix. Just my opinion, Respectfully, advalorem

To: David Howe who wrote (43283)	4/24/2000 10:40:00 PM
From: carl a. mehr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

David, Great post! If I was God watching the masses shout for my son Bill's crucifixion I would fix their 'wagon' by making their Microsoft Windows program inoperative! Let them use Linux, OS2 or whatever. All the crucifixion clowns out there would be unable to respond to this message! God are you listening? ...humble carl