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: Dan3 who wrote (45569)	5/28/2000 12:35:00 PM
From: Dinesh	Respond to of 74651

Dan: We hold the judicial process in such high regard because it is supposedly free of bias. When there is a bias, and when it begins to show through - regardless of whether the bias has any legs or not - the system becomes flawed. People lose their respect for such a system and over time it begins to disintegrate. This may not be apparent immediately. In short run, it may appear to be just a beautiful foresight. But future always catches up. It being a political process, the excesses will not be corrected until this system completely falls apart. (Look at the social security system. Corporations are shifting en masse from defined benefits plans to defined contributions plans. But governments have this powerful ability to raise prices (taxes) that corporations don't...) Judge Jackson appears to be getting personally (emotionally) involved in this case. It's bad news for America. As always, JMHO. More often misguided than not. Regards Dinesh

To: Dan3 who wrote (45569)	5/28/2000 2:22:00 PM
From: Yaacov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Dan, you have good points, and to some degree I could agree with you, MSFT used all it had in their power to dominate the market, but please tell me how did it hurt the public? Where where we before the DOS and the Windows! Its thanks to MSFT that we are exchanging this post. I have used the DOS, windodws, the office and other MSFT softwear to advacne my small business. But I have lived long enough to remember the nightmare with computers prior to that. I think the same goes for the many other citizens not only in the US but world-wide. So we have to be fair, they did the public a service. Now did they do dominate the market and used their power illegally? Probably they did. I guess whoever in charge of such awsome power would do the same. However, the DOJ and the judge should cut out this sutpidity about MSFT hraming the public! How many American citizens are demonstrating in front of MSFT HQ's crying for justice? none! My friend, this is a political issue, that goes deeper than we think! They want MSFT broken up, becasue they are afraid. As for the judge, I thought the judge had to be fair and above all parties! Well, Mr. Jackson showed bias from the start. Was it becasue of the stupidity and arrogance of MSFT defence? I can't tell. What I can tell is that MSFT lawyers did irritate Mr. Jackosn from the start, and I am disappointed that such powerful entity can have such a "piss poor" legal team. Or maybe they know something we don't? We should wait for the ingame. Kind regards Yaacov

To: Dan3 who wrote (45569)	5/28/2000 10:07:00 PM
From: Thunder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

You may be right about the "poor defense" being no accident. By pushing the judge to the breakup option instead of behavior restrictions, Microsoft may have been using a "don't throw me in that brier patch" defense - and it seems to have worked. Are you implying that if it comes to it, that Microsoft would not appeal, or that they would posture in a like kind "poor defense" form in the higher Court(s), as they may have in the lower Court to achieve this? Regards, Gary

To: Dan3 who wrote (45569)	5/31/2000 2:55:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 74651

You may be right about the "poor defense" being no accident. By pushing the judge to the breakup option instead of behavior restrictions, Microsoft may have been using a "don't throw me in that brier patch" defense - and it seems to have worked. I think you make some good points. Although in-house lawyers have been known to do things like what Microsoft did, it's hard to believe a firm like Sullivan & Cromwell would let pass the kind of things that went on in that trial. And Schmalensee, who would be possibly the single most important witness in the whole trial if it was legit, was an absolute disaster. Where I disagree with you is that I do think MSFT is trying extremely hard to thwart a breakup. But that difference of opinion is minor compared to the main point, on which I think you and I agree. As I see it, as a result of MSFT's incompetent defense, DOJ and Judge PJ now find that, having achieved a "great victory" by proving that MSFT is a natural monopoly, they are completely flummoxed by this case. As I read the tea-leaves, despite the superficial bravado, neither DOJ nor PJ seem to know quite what to do with their victory. So DOJ comes up with a half-hearted breakup proposal that implicitly acknowledges that nothing can be done to "restore competition" to the OS market, and Judge PJ, so it seems, just signs off on whatever the DOJ wants. (The exception that proves the rule might be the three-way breakup -- so we can have three companies not competing in the OS market instead of just two! ;) ) This reminds me of those cases one sees from time to time where the trial judge gives the plaintiffs everything they want, with the expectation that it will all get sorted out on appeal. I seem to recall from the Vietnam era some of the draft cases that fit that mold. Maybe I'm wrong, but Judge PJ's overall behavior really does seem to suggest to me that he doesn't really know what to do. So, he just gives the DOJ everything it wants and kicks the whole mess upstairs to let the Court of Appeals or Supremes sort it out.