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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Wells who wrote (102097)	4/25/2000 10:54:00 AM
From: Olu Emuleomo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>>I fail to see the reasoning behind your arguments that Microsoft products are "derivative products" (your words)<<< Eric, GST is right! The problem is MSFT is NOT innovative. However, Bill G is always crying that the Govt is trying to prevent his company from innovating! Let me ask you. Which product is innovative? a) IE or Mosiac/Netscape? b) MS-DOS or CP/M c) Windows or Xerox GUI/Macintosh? d) Excel or Visicalc? e) Word or WordStar? MSFT never invented anything. Not even visual basic. MSFT bought it. Not even DOS. They bought that also. We (software professionals) always laugh when Bill G. talks about innovation. --Olu E. (Sorry for the rant!!)

To: Eric Wells who wrote (102097)	4/25/2000 12:41:00 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Hi Eric: <But whether or not Microsoft products are "derivative" has no bearing on whether or not Microsoft should be broken up, the true issue at hand.> MSFT is arguing that it should NOT be broken up because it will harm MSFTs ability to innovate -- MSFT has put this issue at the center of their defense, not me. Their entire defense revolves around this contention by MSFT. I am merely pointing out that MSFT is not the fountain head of innovation in the first place, and the MSFT argument is vacuous. I am not attacking MSFT products, just their inept attempt to exempt themselves from the law. <You continue to advocate the break-up of the company, yet you're writing as an economist, not as a legal expert. To suggest that a remedy is appropriate, more than economic theory must be taken into consideration - specifically law and precedent. It would be great if you would even just acknowledge this much. But somehow these points seem to escape you - or perhaps you are just ignoring them.> Antitrust law is entirely based on economic theory -- that is just the way it is, no point in blaming me for that. To discuss guilt and remedies, you must debate the application of the economic theory that gives rise to antitrust law in the first place. This is NOT about software, it is about illegal corporate conduct -- a point YOU seem to miss. <I'm open to discussing with you whether or not Microsoft should be broken up. However, I'm not going to spend time debating with you the issue of the innovative nature of Microsoft products - your statements on the issue have been based solely on opinion, and nothing more, and they show a lack of understanding of the software industry on your part.> This is not a case about software, and especially not about operating systems. It does not matter if anybody else writes a pc operating system. It has no bearing on guilt or remedies. This is NOT about software. <And they have no bearing on the real issue at hand (whether Microsoft should be broken up). And do me a favor and answer me one question: do your arguments for break-up have any basis in legal precedent - or do they derive solely from economic theory?> The details of every case are different -- see ATT for a well-known precedent. With ATT, the remedy was more obviously structural. With MSFT it is not so clear. MSFT has vehemently argued that they should not be broken up because of the harm to the public as a result of their blunted capability to innovate. This argument will not win the case. It probably would not win the case even if MSFT was the source of countless breakthrough technologies. It has no merit for a marketing company with derivative products. edit: in the above paragraph I should have said argument over remedies -- the case has already been decided -- MSFT is guilty.