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: John F. Dowd who wrote (43500)	4/26/2000 9:20:00 AM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Hi everyone, just passing through, nonetheless MSFT abused its monopoly position. And it should be dealt with accordingly. I thought I'd check out this thread after reading in the paper today,that Mr. Gates said, "We wouldn't have Windows today if it hadn;t been for the Office group and the Windows group working together...that was done, being one company, going after a new user interface." True, but as everyone knows, the "new user interface" was modelled on Apple Computers older original interface.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (43500)	4/26/2000 9:30:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I don't see any inconsistency. You can't go back and re-fight yesterday's war. The remedies are prospective. JMHO.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (43500)	4/26/2000 9:33:00 AM
From: abbigail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Dear Mr Dowd: "Isn't it odd that the latest proposal for breakup leaked by the DOJ calls for a split up wherein the browser group would be left as a part of the O/S company and not with the applications company? This remedy undercuts the phony premise in italics above. JFD" I will buy all the MSFT I can the day doj's remedy is presented to jj. All of their bullets will have been spent. Then softee's army will resume its march ... " yo left, yo left, yo left, right, left .... abbigail <:]

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (43500)	4/26/2000 9:55:00 AM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

John, If your extension of that rumour is true (that the Browser would belong to the OS group) then you are right - that is weird, BUT, the remedy has gone far beyond the simple issue of the initial Browser complaint. The DOJ is not simply addressing the initial and specific issue of how MSFT abused its monopoly powers to enter and dominate the browser market. In fact, putting in a remedy to resolve the Browser Market balance is impossible and a waste of time for everyone. The damage has been done and nothing will reverse the damage. The point is to prevent future MSFT abuses. The more important issue at hand and that which the DOJ and State AGs are trying to solve is how to FORCE MSFT to play by the rules. The Breakup consideration is the DOJ/States' AGs way of saying that they cannot trust MSFT to play by the rules and a remedy must be put in place which makes it very difficult for MSFT to hide illegal Anti-Trust practices. So John, on the surface it would seem weird but if you step back and look at what is being solved, the location of the browser product (IE) after the breakup is a moot point. Toy

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (43500)	4/26/2000 11:16:00 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

re: the latest proposal for breakup leaked by the DOJ calls for a split up wherein the browser group would be left as a part of the O/S company Yes, it is odd, and inconsistent with the stated reasons why the suit was originally brought. I suspect that the breakup proposal is just a threat, and eventually they will settle for restrictions. And those restrictions will include: 1) ensuring a separate OS and browser, and 2)not allowing access to a product with dominant market share to be dependant on including any other of Microsoft's products. The other possibility is that the government has changed its mind, and now thinks splitting off the applications part is more important than separating the browser from the OS. Hard to know.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (43500)	4/26/2000 11:21:00 AM
From: Valley Girl	Respond to of 74651

The theory is that bundling the browser with the OS is only a problem because of the OS monopoly. Undercut that monopoly and it's not a problem. The judge made a lot of hay over the so-called "applications barrier to entry", by which he meant that users got locked in by the applications they run and therefore were unable to choose OS alternatives. The thinking behind the 2-company proposal is that the apps company (which oddly would include the backoffice stuff that seems wholly unrelated to personal productivity apps) would be motivated to produce versions for Linux, etc., thus freeing us from the OS tyranny. I've also heard a 3-company proposal where the third company gets the internet properties (including MSN) and might carry off the browser.