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: Bob Duncan who wrote (45741)	5/31/2000 9:06:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

Daniel, the vast majority of legal experts What you really mean are those anti-MSFT legal types trotted up in front of the TV cameras by the equally anti-MSFT media claim (a very important word) the judge followed all reasonable methods and that there is very little to appeal that likely could be overturned accept that he did not give MSFT enough time to response to the breakup plan This guys behavior and findings are so far off the mark that the supposedly sacrosanct findings of fact will be thrown out by the Appellate Court. Hold on to your calls. JFD

To: Bob Duncan who wrote (45741)	5/31/2000 9:21:00 PM
From: Daniel G. DeBusschere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"...the vast majority of legal experts claim the judge followed all reasonable methods.... " *************************** I can't pass this one up. The "legal experts" know legal procedure but they are over their collective heads in the technical and business issues that surround a huge global high tech company that is trying desperately to keep up with Internet time. Microsoft was under no obligation to "improve" on the government's submission and they did not directly address it in prior responses. This time, they skillfully ambushed the DOJ's proposed remedy with a "semi-detailed" critique that just starts to peel back on the outer skins. They left a tremendous "ambiguity" gap in the critique by separating out NT Server, Win2K Server, Pocket PC, and all of the other "operating systems" that have nothing to do with the details of the complaints which centered on "the X86 PC desktop". How can the judge split these elements in two when (1) Microsoft does not have a monopoly or even majority market share; (2) Oracle has 85% of the data base software; (3) SUN, HP, IBM are major competitors with equal or greater market share in the server market. Read the MSFT submission and think about it a little more before you listen to "all the legal experts" ********************* This dog won't hunt. It has just been pooped on. Best wishes,