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: Thunder who wrote (50266)	9/28/2000 7:59:37 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 74651

Thank you, both.

To: Thunder who wrote (50266)	9/29/2000 10:23:50 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Simply incredible! If MSFT believes they were wronged and wants to fight the case against them, they are labeled "intransigent." Should Jackson even be talking about this while the case is still in play? Strikes me as improper to say the least. Let's run down the facts again. Our Good ole govt(LOL) wants to break up MSFT because of their uncompetitive nature? Yet buy a non-Wintel product from AAPL or SUNW and you will pay 3-5X the price for essentially the same thing. Netscape used to charge $40 for their browser while MSFT gave theirs away. Is there ANY logic to this case whatsoever? Has Judge Jackson ever priced computers? Heck, can he even turn one on? For all of the RHETORIC against MSFT's products, they have contributed more to the efficiency gains we have been seeing for years than any other single factor. I am sick and tired of Lawyers and Judges who don't want to "find fact," but want to make a name for themselves in an area where they have virtually no understanding whatsoever. BK Judge: Microsoft faces breakup because it won't bargain By Bloomberg News September 28, 2000, 3:35 p.m. PT WASHINGTON--Microsoft's "intransigence" is the reason the giant software company faces a breakup order, the judge who ordered the split said today. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, speaking about the case at a public forum for the first time since he ruled June 7, said he would have preferred to see Microsoft and government antitrust enforcers reach a settlement. "The structural remedy was never my remedy of choice," Jackson said. It was "a last resort, and in my judgment, Microsoft's intransigence was the reason." At the same time, he said without further elaboration, "Virtually everything I did may be vulnerable on appeal." The case is headed to an appeals court in Washington that ruled in favor of Microsoft in an earlier dispute with the government. Jackson ordered the breakup after siding with the Justice Department and 19 states in their lawsuit, which accused Microsoft of illegally defending its Windows monopoly, among other things. The order would split the Windows operating system from the rest of Microsoft. Jackson spoke for a half hour at a Washington antitrust conference before dozens of lawyers and a smattering of investment professionals and reporters. His defense of his handling of the case came just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court told a lower court to take the first crack at Microsoft's appeal, in effect rejecting Jackson's certification that direct high court review was of "general public importance." Jackson ruled that Microsoft protected Windows by coercing computer makers, Internet service providers and others not to cooperate with software makers that posed a threat to Windows. He also concluded that Microsoft bolted its Internet Explorer browser to Windows largely to box out a rival Web browser. The 18-year veteran of the federal bench defended the breakup as a move that "sets no precedent." "Enterprises as formidable as Microsoft have been disabled by orders of American courts" many times in the past, he said. Jackson said he sought to prevent the Microsoft case from meeting the same fate as two other prominent government antitrust suits--the case against IBM and the breakup of AT&T. Both matters lingered in the courts for more than a decade. "I have not and have never aspired to be the federal regulator of the software industry--or, for that matter, to enable the U.S. government to become one," Jackson said. Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan declined to comment on Jackson's remarks. In its legal filings, the company has criticized the judge's handling of the case and is seeking to have him disqualified. "We're on appeal, and we're looking forward to the district judge's ruling being reversed on appeal," Cullinan said. Jackson defended the interviews he gave to several media outlets, including comments he made to The New York Times during the trial for publication after he ruled. "I believe it is vitally important to public confidence in the judiciary that my role be understood," he said, adding that he "never considered this case to be a contest of wills between me and Mr. Gates," referring to Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates. The judge drew laughs when he told the crowd his reaction when he learned that the government had filed the Microsoft suit and that he would be presiding. "My first thought was, 'I don't need this,'" he said.