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: Insitu who wrote (50017)	9/26/2000 3:32:24 PM
From: Thunder	Respond to of 74651

This is far from over. Yup. At least the courtroom and media theatrics are, much to their dismay.

To: Insitu who wrote (50017)	9/26/2000 4:29:12 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74651

I think they will affirm the monopoly finding and their only disagreement will be in the remedies area I agree that this is a complex case but there is a small possibility that the Court of Appeals will wish to revisit that part of Judge Jackson's decision where he explained that his own Court of Appeals was misinterpreting the controlling authorities.

To: Insitu who wrote (50017)	9/26/2000 6:20:19 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Insitu, the Ct. of Appeals might also find the record is flawed or inadequate, require further proceedings, and/or reverse Jackson's conclusions of law. He's been wrong before in antitrust matters <g>. Agreed, the DC Circuit can't be expected to rule in favor of MSFT just because it did before. But it seems that after Reno/Klein's team played incredibly heavy-handed, extraordinary legal (and political--remember the press conferences?) tactics and maneuvering to skip over the normal procedure of going to the DC Court of Appeals, and lost, one might conclude that the administration, knowing its case has problems when scrutinized closely, hoped the Supremes would be overwhelmed and just rubber-stamp Jackson in light of their overly burdensome docket. In other words, one might look at this failed procedural gambit by DOJ as an attempted railroad job on Mr. Softy, and when it didn't work, Klein saw that the light at the end of the tunnel was a train coming the other way (he probably got a heads-up last week how the Supremes would come down, 8 to 1), and saw the opportunity to scram. Or maybe Reno or her higher-up found out and told him to scram. Too coincidental -- if they'd won, you think after all this he'd miss basking in the glory along with Reno and the 19 state attorney generals? I look forward to a few of the states' attorneys general being questioned about how much each of their states has spent on this litigation, rather than on education, health care, and medicaid, and how they can justify it, using real numbers, compared to the damages they claim have been caused, USING REAL NUMBERS. Then maybe they'll be the next to resign or be ousted. jmho (and hope)