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: GST who wrote (102124)	4/25/2000 5:41:00 PM
From: Eric Wells	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I am merely pointing out that MSFT is not the fountain head of innovation in the first place GST - I interpret your logic as follows: "Microsoft is claiming that they should not be broken up because it will hurt their ability to innovative. Microsoft is not innovative. Therefore, their defense is flawed." To judge whether a company is innovative in technology, it generally helps to have some knowledge base or experience in technology. From your posts I assume you have neither. Therefore your statements that Microsoft is not innovative are worth nothing - just expression of unfounded opinion on your part. If you truly have some basis for saying the products aren't innovative, share it with us. Otherwise, spare me the harangue. Antitrust law is entirely based on economic theory -- that is just the way it is Judge Jackson is not going to base his decision only on economic theory. There must be legal guidelines regarding remedy - and certainly the judge is going to take precedent into account. You've made a decision, however, without taking such things into account. You cite one precedent - ATT. Certainly the judge is going to consider more - but not you, you don't need any more information to make up your mind on how the company should be punished. You write as though you are an authority - but you're really just speculating. You could lend your words much credence if you provided some substance behind them. This is NOT about software, it is about illegal corporate conduct -- a point YOU seem to miss. GST, you puzzle me. Any remedy will have as a goal to punish and/or restructure the company so as to prevent future anti-trust violations in the market in which Microsoft competes - the software market. So certainly, the software market, as well as the software products that Microsoft produces, must be taken into account. Are you saying the judge should decide on a remedy without consideration of the software market - or without information about the software products Microsoft produces. How can you say that software has nothing to do with this? Even your proposed break-up scheme is along software product lines (breaking Microsoft up into an operating system company and a desktop applications company). GST, I must ask you something else. Over the weekend you posted several messages in which you predicted that the DOJ proposal would be nothing more than a wrist-slap (you'll recall that I countered you by predicting that the proposal would be much more severe - my premise was that the DOJ would ask for the world). You seem so pro-DOJ on this issue now, why were you previously predicting that their recommended remedy would be easy on Microsoft? It has no merit for a marketing company with derivative products. Harsh, GST, harsh - but unfortunately, terribly inaccurate. Oh yes, Nathan Myhrvold (who studied previously with Stephen Hawking) and all those nincompoops Microsoft hired from the MIT, Cal Tech, Harvard and Stanford computer science departments to work in the Advanced Technology Group - why they couldn't innovative themselves around an algorithm even if you mapped it out for them in 0s and 1s. If I had to guess GST, I would guess that you either work for the government or that you're in academia. -Eric