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: Dave who wrote (56162)	2/24/2001 2:49:41 PM
From: Thunder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

That's nonsense. All three parties (MSFT, DoJ, and AGs) were perfectly willing to settle. They just could not agree on the terms. Richard Posner: "I particularly want to emphasize that the collapse of the mediation is not due to any lack of skill, flexibility, energy, determination, or professionalism on the part of the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation." Maybe he just forgot to mention the third after the impasse. One of many places his entire statement can be read, including Microsoft's web page, is at: pbs.org __________________________________________________________ And for a little more history on the matter: Who dunnit? During a news conference Microsoft called late Saturday, Bill Neukom, senior vice president for law and corporate affairs, told journalists and financial analysts that Judge Posner's statement "speaks for itself" as to why the talks collapsed. "He [Posner] mentioned the skill and flexibility of the Department of Justice and Microsoft. But it was a process involving more than those two parties," Neukom said. When asked, point-blank, if he blamed the states for the failure of the settlement talks, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates told reporters that such a claim would be "going a tiny bit too far." But Gates did nothing to dissuade conference-call participants of the notion that conflicting DOJ-state settlement proposals -- with the states allegedly seeking harsher remedies than the federal government -- were part of the reason Posner was unable to mediate a successful settlement. Neither the states nor the DOJ responded to calls requesting comment on Microsoft's charges. But in other news reports some state representatives lashed out at Microsoft, claiming that Microsoft had no one to blame but itself for the breakdown of settlement talks. 20 drafts In his statement released Saturday, Posner expressed frustration that the talks had failed. He also lashed out at those responsible for leaks regarding the content of the settlement talks and rebuked the news media for implying that "there were no serious negotiations over possible terms of settlement until two weeks ago." On the contrary, Posner said, there were nearly 20 successive drafts of a proposed consent decree. Posner said his four months of efforts had "proved fruitless" because differences between the two sides "were too deep-seated to be bridged." In a written statement, Gates said Microsoft had gone "the extra mile" in an attempt to settle the case. He said Microsoft's executive team and its lawyers had spent more than 3,000 hours on settlement. ***** Reports abounded last week over the alleged content of Microsoft's most recent settlement concessions. According to a number of news reports, Microsoft had proposed it would be willing to publish its Windows programming interfaces, open access to its source code to PC makers, level the Windows license pricing field, among other terms. Sunday's New York Times listed what it claimed were the major points in the proposed settlement agreement put forward by the DOJ. These included: uniform Windows pricing; prohibitions against product tying (although no concessions on integration of Internet Explorer with Windows); prohibitions against all exclusive contracts; opening of the Windows application programming interfaces; more liberal OEM source code licensing terms; and prohibitions against Microsoft raising the price of older versions of Windows for at least three years, thus refraining from forcing automatic migrations to the latest versions of its products. According to a number of published reports, the states wanted stronger concessions than these. Earlier in the negotiation process, some states were said to be unwilling to accept any concessions short of breaking up the company into a number of "Baby Bills." Full article: zdnet.com While the assertion that 'all three parties (MSFT, DoJ, and AGs) were perfectly willing to settle' is most likely true to some extent; the appearance is that Posner, Microsoft and the DoJ were all on the same map with an agreement near at hand. 'Some' of the AG's (a minority of the minority during mediation by some reports) dissented from majority during negotiations, for a larger compromise of the Defendant. Settling requires compromise; to accept in spite of incomplete satisfaction. Two of Three compromising to, and moving to a middle ground, while the Third remained planted at the root from start to finish, is hardly a 'willingness' to settle. Let alone a 'perfectly' willingly one at that when the majority is working in commonality together, while the other is not. Hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding you may of had previously. Thunder