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: Mehrdad Arya who wrote (44168)	5/2/2000 9:15:00 PM
From: johnd	Respond to of 74651

We need to see better revenue and earnings and not so gloomy forecast from company. Then we will see better days for stock. Long term is OK. Short term could be frustrating

To: Mehrdad Arya who wrote (44168)	5/2/2000 10:39:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

You may have studied precedents, but I don't see any support for your assumptions in the paragraphs you write. The era of the PC isn't over quite yet, but it's on the way out. Microsoft's financials aren't as impeccable as you think. Consider their compensation scheme, the outstanding puts, and the huge number of shares outstanding. We are a nation of laws, which is part of the reason Microsoft is in trouble. In a nation of laws, you need more than to have the consensus on your side. Microsoft has been keeping the Golden Egg from hatching for too long. It has NOT been in the vanguard of the digital era, and the economy would be healthier if they were kept from abusing their power. JMHO.

To: Mehrdad Arya who wrote (44168)	5/3/2000 8:27:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

MA: Well said! Keep up the rational posting! JFD

To: Mehrdad Arya who wrote (44168)	5/3/2000 9:41:00 AM
From: Insitu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

MA--I, too, have studied the precedents. Very carefully several years ago. Although I am long MSFT, I concluded that the case was a no-brainer. It is and was crystal clear that MSFT held a monopoly position in the relevant market (PC operating systems). There has never been a case where a company had more than a 90% market share in any market, nevermind a market as huge as this, that any court found the company to be anything other than a monopoly. Of course, that's not illegal. But it does mean MSFT has to play by a different set of rules than all others. Sorry, but that's the law. They can't do things that everyone else can do. This has nothing to do with politics, except that MSFT is trying to politicize it. The law is very clear. MSFT either had the most pathetic advisors in history or was too arrogant to listen. Probably a combination. As for the proposed remedy, I don't know. If I were in Steve Ballmer's shoes, I would get a settlement done ASAP and move on.

To: Mehrdad Arya who wrote (44168)	5/3/2000 11:36:00 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

re: Why would we want to jeopardize the equanimity and health of our economy by allowing the DOJ to tamper with the dynamics associated with a company's ability to innovate and compete? So companies like NOVL would have a chance. A breakup would increase innovation and competition. Small software companies, for a long time, have been staying away from any area where MSFT is (or might go into), because they know they don't have a chance, no matter how good their products are.