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 : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Lamb who wrote (11208)	7/10/2000 4:33:13 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24042

re: overlap and DOJ scrutiny, is it possible that with products changing every 6 to 12 months that dominance is hard to determine? With thin film filters, they won't always be the dominant technology and perhaps the DOJ finally figured out they couldn't block a merger based on any one product in a market changing as fast as fiber optics' components. True the combined company will dominate 980nm pumps, but how long will 980nm dominant their space? And if the DOJ were to analyze Raman, wouldn't they have to determine how long they'll run? Just throwing out some food for thought. Admittedly I have little understanding of how the DOJ thinks. Might as well figure out the mind of God. Pat

To: Jim Lamb who wrote (11208)	7/10/2000 6:09:39 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24042

Well, now we are in M&A territory. Perhaps someone with background can shed some light on the situation. With SDLI now trading at about a 20% arb discount, it looks on first glance like the DOJ may be seen as a dealstopper. Especially with the DOJ blocking WCOM/FON, and with JDSU having just made a big acquisition, people may expect the DOJ to be hawkish. However, we have to assume that JDSU, having just been through the ropes, has a decent perspective on what can pass muster. And one thing I wonder: Since SDLI obviously shopped this deal around, at least to GLW, perhaps that will cut down on anti-competitive fears. GLW could have made the deal but chose not to pay up. Therefore, they should have no complaints if somebody else decides to ante up. Also, Scifres and Straus mentioned that the deal would be good for customers, so what's not to like. That is my amateur layman's take on this. I would be interested to hear others' perspectives.