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: Joe NYC who wrote (108571)	4/30/2000 2:40:00 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1571821

Jozef, RE: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. Did you ever notice how the cost of the OS has crept up over time? The same goes for the application suite(office). We have seen computer prices fall but not the OS and Apps....they have risen in just the monopolistic way you deny. MSFT did this intentionally and tied the sale of a system to the OS to prevent you from buying a system less OS so you could install Linux, Unix or Be etc....which you can now do. By definition making a consumer pay more for an item is 'hurting' them, MSFT stabbed them in the wallet. It makes no difference that the system price fell by a larger amount, more than offsetting the OS increases...we should have had both. It now costs less for MSFT to make and sell the OS than it did in the DOS days, the book is far smaller and it is on CD which is a lot cheaper than floppies and the increase in volume has made the development costs per copy fall as well even as they have increased in aggregate. MSFT has a functional monopoly of the OS market place. Linux, Be, etc are not ready to compete in the goon market although they are accepted well in the guru niches. Linux is hampered by the serious lack of applications compared with Winx, but this is changing and if the DOJ makes certain code publicly available then the linux apps will dramatically increase and linux will begin a real assault. Linux should be a capable contender in 2 years if the DOJ's will be done. If not, a long slow climb. Bill

To: Joe NYC who wrote (108571)	4/30/2000 11:14:00 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571821

RE: 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 It would only be illegal for Netscape if they were also considered a monopoly. Tim

To: Joe NYC who wrote (108571)	4/30/2000 7:09:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571821

Jozef re <<then Netscape was engaged in exactly the same illegal activity>> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Netscape was NOT a monopoly! I am so amazed that the simple concept of Monopoly, leveraging that monopoly to destroy competitors in other markets and the whole concept behind Sherman Anti Trust is so difficult to understand. Mani

To: Joe NYC who wrote (108571)	5/1/2000 7:35:00 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 1571821

RE: "I see nothing good coming out of their proposals." <sarcasm turned on> One advantage: Intel and AMD can now pay for any OS "middleware" advancements, since the DOJ's proposal has made it shareware! (Did I really read the DOJ proposal correctly?) Remember how MS announced an investment of around $10MM+ on some middleware stuff that Intel & Intel's competitors could use for their advancements with their products? Well, maybe there's no financial incentive for innovation, since the middleware is now shareware (if I interpreted the DOJ proposal correctly?) Why would MS innovate middleware for the benefit of Intel & Intel's competitor, if the DOJ requires MS to give it to the competitors for free? <sarcasm turned off> I hope the CTOs in the industry get together and really examine the cost of the proposal by way of their innovations. OTOH, one legal expert told me he doubts the case will make it through the Appeals because the FOFs obvious one-sidedness and it clearly does not detail facts from both sides of the case. (Which isn't to say MS didn't cross a line). Amy J

To: Joe NYC who wrote (108571)	5/1/2000 12:47:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 1571821

Dear Jozef: When a company steadfastly refuses to keep its agreements both in spirit and in deed, making rules does not fix the problem. The only solution is to drastically change the management, ergo breakup. Since the government can not affix the blame, (although some are heavily implicated), the only SURE way to stop the practice is to stop the ability to do it. Thus, breaking Microsoft into 2 or 3 entities in different markets, is the only logical way to proceed. Forcing members to choose which of the two companies to join, at least punishes the recalcitrant management for these practices. However, I think that, certain responsible parties should pay a personal fine. They agreed to stop certain practices, and still did them anyway (with a few cosmetic changes). A fine of Half of Bill Gates and other parties personal stock, would show a strong message that these practices are not to be tolerated. The stockholders also bear some responsibility by not selling the stock when the allegations came out. Those stockholders benefited, now they must pay the penalty. If your company is caught doing wrong, the people responsible, plus the board, and the stockholders bear the penalties and the cost. Although in the Microsoft case, where the principals in these crimes, are also on the board and between them had sufficient control of the company, the stockholders should be not materially affected. In most cases, it is the stockholders who bear the costs from the deception of the principals, who made the stock look more attractive than it would be had they stuck to the straight and narrow reading of the law. I know many policyholders in Insurance Companies got "the shaft" when management screwed up and played in riskier investments than what they were allowed to. Some, including my parents, practically lost the entire investment. And those responsible, did not even get a "Slap on the Wrist". Just because the "poor" Microsoft shareholders are losing half, or more of their investment, does not appear to be as bad as the former. They will have something after the breakup. Pete