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 (51928)	10/21/2000 11:31:24 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I think anti-trust enforcement should be like nuclear weapons - something everyone knows about but no one uses. The current statutes were designed at a time when business cycles ran many years, and one could argue that even then the mechanisms were too cumbersome to actually affect the markets being addressed. There are plenty of potential remedies for actual illegal actions which do not require invocation of anti-trust to be applied. The idea that the government is in a position to determine what a fair market is, and apply remedies to address inequities in those markets, is ludicrous. Given the big money involved, the attraction to execute hidden agendas, extort various concessions which have nothing to do with the business environment, and just plain screw things up through ignorance is too great to allow an extension of anti-trust activism. It's the legal equivalent of Mike Milken's junk bonds - "money for nothing and your chicks for free".

To: Insitu who wrote (51928)	10/21/2000 11:54:54 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

, on the 70% market share standard. But how do you feel about 90%? At that level, as we have seen What is REALLY SCARRY about Gore's statement is that a percentage test is not the test of an illegal monopoly. Intel has a 100% monopoly in intel processors. Lawyers like yourself have a 100% monopoly in practicing law. The law protects the bad use of that monopoly, getting software for free is not one of those problems. What is REALLY SCARRY about Gore's statement is that what he really said was "I am really a socialist, it doesn't matter what the law is, if a private enterprise gets too large, its just A-ok for the Government to jump in and just dick around, just to "help" everybody." What is REALLY SCARRY about Gore's statement is that he is interfering with the balance of powers between the Judiciary and the Administrative Branch of our government. That, whatever you wish to call it, is not good for business, and in the extreme is devastating for business. Kellogg this morning was just forced to close one of their biggest plants because they can't find enough of the right kind of corn that the US Environmental Protection Agency doesn't like it EVEN THO IT ISN'T HARMFUL. That's wrong.

To: Insitu who wrote (51928)	10/21/2000 12:41:52 PM
From: TTOSBT	Respond to of 74651

Re: But how do you feel about 90%? At that level, as we have seen, a company can take actions which eliminate other companies or their products." Why is it that when MSFT faces the courts some people claim they are too big for their competitor's, and when they face their competitor's they miss-stepped and are too late to compete in the internet? IMO this case was an attempt to keep MSFT from entering the internet long enough to give their competitors a head start. Now that that has been accomplished let Gates go at it. This issue about consumer harm has obviously cost Kelin his position? The courts should get out of the way. The internet is big enough for MSFT, SUNW, ORCL, IBM, SDLI, JDSU, AT&T, AOL, YHOO, VERIZON, CSCO, CMRC, ARBA, DELL, HWP, CPQ, ETC ETC ETC. Just my twocents, thanks. TTOSBT