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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (23957)	5/24/2000 5:58:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 24154

That sounds quite excellent to me.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (23957)	5/25/2000 12:41:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Absolutely breathtaking -- this judge has got real cojones. I always thought this judge would break up Microsoft if DOJ were to ask him to do it. I never thought he'd be so hot to break it up that he'd go for something even more extreme than DOJ. But the judge is right to question the idea of setting up two separate monopolies. The DOJ proposal has not been shown empirically to work. It's based on the assumption that, in an OS market characterized by a natural monopoly, a profit maximizing company writing software for the OS will want to treat all competing brands equally. That's an assumption that has not been shown to be true, at least not to those not privy to the DOJ's computer models. I seem to recall some discussion on this board a long, long time ago on the subject of polluted Java. This was a while back, and my memory may be faded, but I seem to recall that I tried to argue that it would be irrational for software developers to write programs for the "native OS capabilities" (or whatever Microsoft's jargon was at the time) of polluted Java because they would be excluding all of the users with OS'es that don't run polluted Java. Hence, Microsoft's strategy of using polluted Java to drive out real Java would fail. My recollection is that more than one person put me in my place on that one -- they argued that software developers would just write for whatever version of Java was dominant and forget about the versions that run best on the little guys' OS'es, or so somebody's computer models allegedly showed. It seems to me that the same rationale applies to writing software apps for operating systems. What works for Microsoft when it comes to encouraging developers to write for polluted Java ought to work for the post-breakup OS company when it comes to encouraging developers to write for the dominant OS, or for the post-breakup Office company when it comes to encouraging developers to write new OSes. Come to think of it, that's the whole premise of the DOJ's case -- that app writers will only write for the dominant OS and OS developers will want to run the dominant apps. Why should post-breakup Office app developers or post-breakup OS developers be any different?

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (23957)	5/25/2000 1:27:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Judge Suggests U.S. Remedy for Microsoft Is Inadequate nytimes.com Meanwhile, for old times' sake, the good gray Times on the issue. Me and the judge are in agreement on this, I don't really see the point in setting up 2 monopolies in place of one. Reverting to past form, I quote only an amusing bit. When Microsoft's turn came to promote its own proposed remedy, the judge asked no questions. And to Microsoft's request for a delay, the judge told a company lawyer: "I find it somewhat ironic that your client believes its travails will end at the court of appeals, and yet wants to spend more time in this court." Also this amusing dialog on "open" software in the Microsoftese sense. Along with the breakup plan it submitted to the judge, the government proposal includes several temporary rules to alter Microsoft's conduct while the breakup would be carried out. Mr. Warden complained that one of them, requiring Microsoft to divulge technical information on Windows to other software companies, was "confiscatory." It would require Microsoft to turn trade secret over to "all of our fiercest competitors" as well as "pirates and counterfeiters," he added. A short time later, responding to Microsoft's complaints, the judge remarked: "I ask you if forfeiture is not a traditional, equitable remedy." Oh, I can't stop myself. Back on the old subject of facts and law, there's some whistling past the graveyard here: Microsoft officials were surprised and upset by the decision to close the record today. A few minutes after the hearing adjourned, William H. Neukom, Microsoft's chief counsel, said: "We had sought to have our day in court on remedies, but the judge has decided not to do that. So this case will now be decided at the court of appeals, and we will be raising issues of procedure in our appeal, as well as issues of fact and law." Boo hoo. So, Microsoft blew its case in court, about as bad as anyone could imagine, and now the subordinate counsel thinks he's going to retry it all on appeal. Well, maybe, it's a legal issue. Of course, Microsoft has always preferred to argue everything but legal issues, but that's what happens when the chairman acts as his own attorney. Cheers, Dan.