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: cheryl williamson who wrote (46484)	6/12/2000 7:05:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Cheryl - I think that is an insightful article and highlights one of the bigger changes in MSFT's position in the industry. Equally important is the change in the attitudes of people in the developer community - a change I have seen first hand. One senior MSFT executive, after a particularly scathing session with some developers, said "when did we get to be the bad guys?" Evidently, MSFT failed to notice the gradual shift in thinking which had been underway since maybe 1995, but the current press attention has made it abundantly clear that a lot of people in the development community had pent-up hostility against Redmond. If MSFT is to succeed in the future they need to develop some kind of leadership in the development community, and that has to be by presenting something attractive. The arrival of a new architectural framework gives someone a golden opportunity to get mindshare - and so far, MSFT has not been harvesting much of that.

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (46484)	6/14/2000 1:45:00 PM
From: david_si	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Here's some argument for that assertion that Microsoft causes higher prices: "The district court erroneously held that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in a relevant product market. The market defined by the court is too narrow because it excludes the most serious threats faced by Microsoft?s operating systems, including the competing platform technologies that were the objects of the allegedly anticompetitive conduct in this case. In addition, the court did not find that Microsoft has the power unilaterally to raise prices in or exclude competition from the operating system business, the touchstone of monopoly power. See, e.g., Indiana Grocery, Inc. v. Super Valu Stores, Inc., 864 F.2d 1409, 1414 (7th Cir. 1989); Ball Mem?l Hosp., Inc. v. Mutual Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1335 (7th Cir. 1986). In fact, the COURT FOUND that the evidence was INSUFFICIENT to establish that Microsoft ever charged a "monopoly price" for Windows. (See Findings ô 65.) "The court DETERMINED that there was INSUFFICIENT evidence to conclude that, absent Microsoft actions, greater operating system competition would exist today. (See, e.g., id. ô 411.) "