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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig Freeman who wrote (11898)	6/10/2000 8:03:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Craig, though I'm not a lawyer, I have read a lot of the commentary on the MSFT case in publications such as The Economist and The New York Times. I don't want to discourage you, but the factual evidence against MSFT appears to be so overwhelming, and the number of mistakes made by the MSFT legal team so unbelievable that IMHO it is highly unlikely that any appeal will go in favor of MSFT. I am particularly amazed at the opinions given in the latest issue of The Economist, which is pretty conservative in these matters, and which generally favors a hands off approach by government on matters such as this. The best available information I've seen on the SNDK case against Lexar is right on this discussion board, and the general views expressed by those who have been following the case closely suggest that a decision might come in October or later. Given that the prospects for SNDK look pretty good, and the prospects for MSFT look really awful, if I owned MSFT, I would switch sooner than later. By the way, the appeal by MSFT will not stop the states and individual companies from a series of civil actions claiming damages, based on discovery testimony, most of which was supplied willingly (yes, without any attempt to hide it) by Microsoft officials themselves. One more point. It is my understanding that an appellate court rarely disputes the findings of fact of a lower court, particularly when the findings are based mainly on the testimony of the defendant/appellant. And even if an appellate court decided that the behavior of the defendant, as revealed in the defendant's own documents (e-mails, depositions, etc.) did not violate the antitrust law, the facts clearly show that people were damaged. Put another way, the plaintiff states and corporations don't have to show that MSFT violated the antitrust law, but merely that they were intentionally damaged through Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. That is going to give MSFT one big headache in legal fees and possible judgments that could also include punitive damages. The other headache is already happening, as there appears to be evidence that some of the top talent at MSFT are leaving to pursue other opportunities. The real tragedy here is that this case should have been settled even before the government filed the original complaint. The fact that it wasn't can be attributed mainly to Bill Gates' immense ego. Art