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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (44234)	5/4/2000 12:50:00 AM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Jacob You forget that when the Sherman Act was passed, the 16th Amendment(Income Tax) did not exist. The Federal Reserve did not exist. Standard Oil, the railroads, the steel industry and the other "robber barons" were not paying any income taxes on their profits. Plus, it made great copy for Charles Foster Kane's (er, William Randolph Hearst's) newspapers! In short, the antitrust laws were passed during a era of rampant populism sentiment in Washington. They helped assuaged the feelings of people that the government was balancing out the equation between corporations and citizens* although the antitrust laws became toothless with the advent of government reform activism in the 1910-30's. * BTW, "citizen" was what we used to call the "consumer". Today, Microsoft does pay income taxes and operates under a net of regulations that that 1910-30's "era of reform" wove to circumscribe corporate practices like the Lilliputians did Gulliver. Yet, the price of MSFT Office today is a fraction of what was paid for its INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS in the 1980's, before it was a adjudged a monopoly by the hyenas in the DOJ. So your apologium for the Herbert Spencer / Social Darwinism school of regulatory law is the defense of an anachronism. And, there is an overwhelming ongoing debate about the efficacy of the antitrust laws. My favorite argument is that the law is arbitrary, subjective and tends to be enforced selectively, if at all. Sort of like state sodomy laws than are symbolic, arbitrary and not enforcable. Apt metaphor for this case,the sodomy laws, although you probably think that the consumer is getting raped while I believe it is MSFT and its shareholders who are being violated. The fact that MSFT could achieve market dominance (I won't use the word monopoly) in such a "fettered" environment against such entrenched giants as IBM, DEC, XEROX, etc. is truly amazing. That is why this trial is a political witch hunt - that's all it can be. The antitrust laws are obsolete and the original need for them is now obviated by the tangled layers of microregulation the the "Mixed Economy" (to use that euphemism ) now imposes on business as well as the global effects of competition and the mad pace of technology. But, the populist ""monopoly harangues" of the DOJ still catch a lot of dumb fish in its net. Who benefits? Only the Democrats, who have used the politics of class warfare and envy at every juncture to divide us for their political ends. Ciao, Daniel

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (44234)	5/4/2000 10:46:00 AM
From: Mehrdad Arya	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Jacob, Msft did not become a monopoly by acquisition like Standard Oil and ATT. It should also be noted that there are many other monopolies in the tech sector that should also be equally split up if the consensus is to equitably divvy up monopolies. Unlike prior monopolies that were split up, such as Standard Oil and ATT, 70% of the public is not in agreement with the DOJ doing the same to Msft, most feel the punishment is too harsh for the actions they are culpable of and they also feel Msft has benefited the consumer financially, which was not the case with ATT and Standard Oil. I for one feel the DOJ proposal will eventually cost the consumer and contrary to their belief it will do little to foster more competition. When ever the gov'ts of any nation entangle themselves in business the results are appalling and onerous to society. The gov't should do little to interfere with the operations of companies and they should limit their role to assuring no company abuses the public and laws of the land. America would be better served if Msft were punished financially for its' infractions but to tamper with the Flagship of our digital economy would be tantamount to treason.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (44234)	5/4/2000 12:00:00 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Respond to of 74651

>>The economy was evolving into a situation where each industry was controlled by a single company, or a group of companies who coordinated their activities, so they acted as a single entity. The nation decided this was Wrong. << What most people don't investigate is that perhaps in some way, shape, or form, the antitrust laws actually benefited the monopolists. One doesn't become a money monopolist without also being a first-class manipulator; of government policy, public opinion, etc. FWIW Andy