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: Kashish King who wrote (46961)	6/18/2000 5:38:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Rod - nice, well-balanced post... not. My empty rhetoric was meant to imply that MSFT management knows what the terms of settlement from the DOJ were, we do not, so assuming that settlement was better than the alternatives is conjecture. In years of dealing across the table from MSFT I have found them to be responsive to an appeal to practical consequences, and the fact that in this case they did not settle indicates, at least to me, that the terms of that settlement did not meet the minimum bar. I'm not sure what corrective guidance you are referring to. The clients I have are mostly big financial companies, and the current mindset among those customers is that the DOJ action and proposed remedies do nothing positive for them and have a lot of potential negative implication, so at least I have company in my asinine stipulations.

To: Kashish King who wrote (46961)	6/18/2000 6:14:00 PM
From: David Howe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Rod, You are the one that is off-base, IMO. Let's review your response to rudedog: << Let's look at another one of your asinine claims: the Court wanted to "teach Bill a lesson" from the outset; they could not have settled even if they wanted to. Dog, what do you think this is? >> What I think of this is that you are wrong. MSFT could have settled, but it would have been VERY painful and damaging to their future business. As rudedog says, the court did want to teach MSFT a lesson and MSFT decided not to settle for the court's remedies (the court and the DOJ are one in the same, IMO). Exactly as rudedog states, MSFT chose to take their chances with a higher court because the court wanted to teach them a lesson. << A forum where you post cracker-jack nonsense concocted in your own head and then posture it as fact? I'm afraid your kidding yourself if you think you are seeing this from an objective viewpoint. Tell me, have you simply been ignoring the corrective guidance that must surely have been coming your way in your home and work environments? I can't see how else you could think you could get away with these ridiculous stipulations and expect them to stick, other than just ignoring everything and anything except your own twisted opinions. >> This is amazing. A full paragraph dedicated to insulting rudedog. You've managed to lose my respect. No point / counter point here, only that your post was garbage. rudedog was correct and you were incorrect; period. Dave