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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2262)	10/8/2000 6:46:22 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 12245

>>How many thousand antitrust cases are held each year? There should be literally thousands. I bet there are not.<< All you need to enforce the law is one high-profile case every ten years. The rest of the companies get the message and obey the law.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2262)	10/14/2000 1:32:19 PM
From: qdog	Respond to of 12245

They also control 100% of the free email with huge functionality market. Sure there are other email programmes, but nothing like Eudora. No, they don't. I'm surprised the Hagfish Guild hasn't started an antitrust case against Q! for leveraging their CDMA and ASIC total market dominance into greedy royalties of 5%. It isn't the press that went after Mr. Softie. If anything, they helped build them. Again, if manufacturers file multiple complaints, then the government is forced to conduct an investigation. If in the course of that investigation, they are discovered of violating the law, then it to the courts to be adjudicated. Q! is also fixin' to leverage their phone OS to dominate the WIt browsing market, just as you say MSFT leveraged their OS to dominate the wired browsing market. Looks the same to me. But Q! is leveraging a LOT more. Doubtful as there are plenty of competition on this arena. IF they manage to secure most of the ASIC market and build to optimize their software, then that will get complaints which will then force the government to take a look. If Microsoft is failing in growth due to the attack and the resulting distraction, I can't see why any American would be proud of that. People say MSFT isn't innovative. How come their OS continues to be the best if that is true? Windows2000 is great. It has all sorts of features and functionality and innovations. Their failures are plenty. First failure is the investment made in a bunch of high flying dot com junk that has crashed and burned. Their second failure is the hedging in their own stock, which was mainly writing puts. Thirdly, with a choice of cheaper and better OS, they are forced to cut prices to keep market share or to stay static in pricing and lose market share. Either way, their growth projections are affected. Lastily, they are losing customers for the same reason alot of folks do, poor customer care. Buggy software that frustrates and annoys consumers, coupled with arrogant human intervention and bull crap statements like "That will be corrected in the next release." That is a release that will have to be bought. Let see here, Firestone makes defective tires, yet you are going to have to buy new tires to replace these defective death traps? I suppose you think that the government should stand idlely by and do nothing? How many thousand antitrust cases are held each year? There should be literally thousands. I bet there are not. It is really all about whining competitors who can't do a good job and want government support. Not even that many. IBM did dominate computing for ages and the antitrust attack didn't change that. The market and technology changed. The PC arrived like a hurricane and competitors climbed all over IBM. The government was just a leech. In the early 1980s, IBM was as arrogant as heck and computer people bought the 'safety' of IBM, but it was still choice. Then, in a few short years, it became totally uncool to buy IBM and Dell took off. No they didn't. Yes things change and evolve. Yes the government answer to complaints of IBM and they did "go" after them but negotiated out of it. Which what had happen with Mr. Softie a couple of times. IBM got it and Mr. Softie hasn't. AT&T dominance was a government-protected and caused monopoly. For decades, nobody was allowed to compete with the telephone companies. They were licensed or even government-owned. That's where the monopoly arose. The government in the USA is even now absurdly controlling who cna provide what services to whom and where etc. That is wacky! T was never owned by the government. It was a deal for years between the government and T. T expanded the network to give affordable communications to the masses in return the government allow them to have no competition. There rates where regulated by Utility Boards. At the time, they were the premiere company to do just that. The next step was to open it up to competition, which after some fits and starts has and is blooming. Competition and innovation are unparalleled in the industry and it spreading on a global basis, employing more and more folks. It took a momunental court case that in the end T chose it's own poison, not the government or the courts. Do you have any links to the exact laws which were allegedly broken by Microsoft and the exact actions which they took which broke those laws? There are a multitude of links, yet they are to be view in your own mind with the law as it is, not your opinion of what it should be. Some is neutral, some highly biased but the ultimate is the case itself and those transcripts and video. That same testimony and further arguments will be heard in appeal. The end results are that companies are challenging Mr Softie in a better competitive arena. QCOM is still in a highly competitive situation, that has no guarantees. No similarity whatsoever.