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 (52381)	10/29/2000 2:59:06 AM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

...it's still "law in process"... --- This gives me a warm feeling inside, knowing that you Thunder, for the rest of your life, are going to look at convicted individuals (which you have no equity interst in) in a similar light; right? Let's isolate out Mahogany Americans in federal prisons on drug charges. They're still "in process" too, right Thunder? --- How about any one of the 50 or so executions that take place on Death Row in Texas each year? Most of those guys are "in process" right up until they get the call from Governor Bush's office, right Thunder? --- And a 'President' Bush is going to end this Microsoft prosecution/verdict just as soon as he's sworn in because Microsoft (and co.) were big contributors to his campaign? --- You're a pretty sophisticated investor. (IMO) -JCJ

To: Thunder who wrote (52381)	10/29/2000 1:22:42 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

If the Appellate Court does NOT reverse the Trial Court, will you conclude Microsoft has indeed done something illegal? What about if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against Microsoft (or fails to reverse an Appellate decision to that effect)? Or is there no room in your Universe for something like that to happen? I'm just trying to understand at what point (if any) you'll admit Microsoft has lost. JMHO. Charles Tutt (TM)

To: Thunder who wrote (52381)	10/29/2000 9:08:32 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

Thunder: Great Post. But to hear Mr. Clinton tell it DOJ sort of operates without his knowledge or consent in regards to what they are up to. This allows him to say things like, "I don't think the DOJ was fair to Wen Ho Lee at Los Alamos." I mean if the DOJ is not under the control of the Pres. maybe in this regime there is no controlling legal authority and everyone in the executive branch is a loose canon and depending on the political fallout Clinton either sides with them or distances himself from whatever the matter under scrutiny is. If he were to be in office when this Court gets done with tearing Jackson a new one he would undoubtedly chide the now absent Kline for being too zealous with a cautionary admonition suggesting that we should stay alert for corporate abuses of power. Thank goodness this Janus will be leaving the White House soon and hopefully replaced by someone who is forthright or as least as forthright as a politician can be. JFD