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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (36703)	12/15/2000 7:56:47 PM
From: Joshua Corbin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm hoping Janet Reno's replacement will give Microsoft the option of settling the lawsuit instead of pressing to ruin one of America's most successful companies. Part of the deal with the lawsuit is that it assumed that Microsoft would be king of the world forever. The Feds didn't consider that the tech world is constantly changing -- and that the issues of the 1990s may never come again. In Gilder-speak, we're moving from microcosm to telecosm and issues about Netscape and whatnot are the stuff of history now. I'm amazed that Alan Greenspan takes all the credit for the mad cow market but nobody talks about Thomas Penfield Jackson anymore. I feel for all the smart, dedicated people who are getting their stock options clobbered right now. If you think you're hurting, yikes, think of them.

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (36703)	12/16/2000 2:01:40 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm hoping Janet Reno's replacement will give Microsoft the option of settling the lawsuit It takes two to settle. Softie didn't want to settle the first time. I think the issue is whether or not her replacement will agree to making the settlement terms more appealing to Microsoft. Considering that Gates is still sticking to his guns that he refuses to allow the government to prevent him from innovating and that any settlement terms would surely leave that taste in his mouth, I don't see a settlement happening. --Mike Buckley

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (36703)	12/16/2000 10:35:21 AM
From: BDR	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

<<I'm hoping Janet Reno's replacement will give Microsoft the option of settling the lawsuit instead of pressing to ruin one of America's most successful companies.>> MSFT will probably await for the appeals process to run its course. One opinion on that outcome: Microsoft's Appealing Case, cato.org Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's final judgment in the Microsoft case indicates that he has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the government's flawed arguments. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is unlikely to be so accommodating. The Justice Department's case will crumble as a result of procedural errors, flawed fact-finding, wrongheaded legal conclusions, and Jackson's preposterous plan to break up the software company most directly responsible for America's high-tech revolution. From the same source, more on Judge Jackson's logic: Microsoft's "Applications Barrier to Entry": The Missing 70,000 Programs cato.org Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson bases his ruling against Microsoft on the claim that the company’s monopoly in operating systems is protected by an "applications barrier to entry" made up of 70,000 Windows-based software programs. . . . The overwhelming majority of the 70,000 Windows applications that make up the supposedly impregnable barrier to entry either never existed as unique products, no longer exist, or are totally out of date. When only unique Windows applications are counted—setting aside various versions of the same program—the number of applications is a small fraction of the judge's count. Moreover, survey data indicate that the needs of active computer users are satisfied by a very small number of applications. That means the barrier to entry into the operating-system market is nowhere near as impregnable as the judge has claimed, which in turn helps explain many of Microsoft's aggressive business tactics to preserve its market position. Because the judge's most essential finding is clearly erroneous, it cannot support his conclusions of law. And while we are (or at least I am) on the subject of government involvement with private business activities: Open Access, Private Interests, and the Emerging Broadband Market cato.org The debate over open access to new cable broadband networks marks the first significant entry of Internet service providers (ISPs) into the great game of using the regulatory process to escape market realities. Quite simply, a legal requirement opening local cable networks to ISPs allows ISPs to avoid investing in alternative networks. It is tempting for businesses in this position to take a regulatory shortcut, asking lawmakers to force existing networks to let them piggyback on others' investments. . . . In either forum, allowing government to determine what speech the networks must carry is a dangerous precedent. This analysis shows future policymakers the conflict between the First Amendment and mandatory open access. That is probably enough from Cato for a Saturday. Dale@iwonderiflibertariansareallklackknights.org