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: Jim McMannis who wrote (109079)	5/2/2000 2:45:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578858

Jim, Do you and Pravin EVER check your private messages ;) Steve

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (109079)	5/2/2000 4:42:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578858

Dear Jim: The state charges are the same as the federal ones. They are just there to make sure the feds do not give Microsoft a "Slap on the Wrist" but real remedies. They want Microsoft to stop these practices. They feel that Microsoft will simply break any agreement or rules that are set and we will have to do this all over again. Thus the only way is for Microsoft to be structurally changes so that it can not do this again. This is what forces the break-up. Since Microsoft has shown they can not be trusted, then they must be broken into two or three companies in separate markets, OS, Office, and Internet (Wisconsin has been pushing for three companies, I believe). Whether Languages / Compilers go with OS or Office (where they should) companies , I do not know what the proposed remedy states. I think that most of the states are in this thing to have their say on what the remedy is and to make sure the Feds will have the gumption to follow through. The 10% to 20% of share in any market (Such as PC OS or C++ Compilers for example) simply starts the restrictions placed on monopolies start that much sooner. Thus the proof of the monopoly could be changed to simply show so many percent of the market (although some guidelines on how narrow a market is would probably be necessary). Microsoft could be easily shown to have 20% of PC OS or Single User WP markets. Thus they could not say (although this is rather obvious that they knew) we did not know we were a monopoly. For example, Intel would certainly fit as having > 80% of the PC CPU market and AMD would fit as being in the upper range of that threshold (whether you define it in units or revenue) at around 17% where, Via (Cyrix) would not be covered. Thus both AMD and Intel would be constrained by the stricter "Monopoly" rules (Laws). The FTC and the DOJ already do this for mergers and acquisitions. Thus a large part of the expense in the trial (proving Microsoft had a monopoly), would be much smaller. It it almost always better to use some pretty easy to define and measure rules over a vague label in the laws anyway. Regulation of the practices (No one disputes that, if a company states some facts or presentations that are completely false, that they should be fined and pay a hefty fine. If they purgjure themselves in a court, they should be jailed and pay very large fines), is not any different than the laws covering anyone selling a product or service out in the market today. Pete