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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mani1 who wrote (108551)	4/30/2000 1:12:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1571808

Mani, By leveraging the OS, Microsoft was able to destroy Netscape. I agree That was illegal I am not sure if what Microsoft did was illegal. If it was, then Netscape was engaged in exactly the same illegal activity. Netscape was leveraging the proceeds from IPO to grab marketshare by giving away Netscape browser for free in order to crush their competitors (there were other browsers that competed with Netscape). They were on the verge of a complete success when Microsoft and gave them a run for their money (literally) and hurt consumers This is where we disagree. Please explain how I as a consumer was hurt. This is the weakest link of the case, and I believe hurting consumers is a necessary condition to a claim that a company violated anti-trust laws. the only one who benefited was MSFT share holders. Microsoft shareholders have historically benefited from MSFT programmers doing a better job (over time) than the competition. This case is not any different. I am so glad that DOJ is doing its job for once! If I was running DOJ, I would go as far trying to prove that MSFT is a monopoly, which I agree it is. But a remedy phase should not be a vendetta. It should be establishment of some rules to curb continuation of abuses, especially in licensing and distribution of products. For example, one thing I would propose that MSFT as a monopoly would be prevented from discrimination between their customers when it comes to pricing, licensing terms, access to Betas etc. I think the DOJ started ok, but they have completely dropped the ball now. I see nothing good coming out of their proposals. Joe

To: Mani1 who wrote (108551)	5/1/2000 7:19:00 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571808

RE: "What are you talking about? Netscape came before IE, way before! " -------------- Mani, Did it? Look under the hood. You sound like you do not know what existed under the hood. Do you really think a designer would not develop a transport mechanism to the Internet and not deploy it in the OS so that all application developers can benefit from this equally and freely? And, do you really think a designer would not throw GUI over the Internet in order to make it easy to use for the consumer? Application developers and consumers are important - and serving their needs is critical. The Internet is simply another extension off of your local, an extension not dissimilar from a Server, for viewing and launching other abstract activities of abstract objects located on: your local, your server, a drive, the Internet, located anywhere. And, integration and interoperability are key ! which is why a designer designs it for placement in the OS. Why were the FOFs one-sided? Where are all the facts? The government only allowed 12 witnesses. Innovation of the OS needs to occur in order for software application developers and IHVs (and now ASPs) to have a platform which provides them with the necessary interoperability and tools for their advancements and developments. Having said that, it's my personal opinion there was a (big) issue with how the competition was handled in this particular case. Amy J