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: Brian Sullivan who wrote (56315)	2/27/2001 5:30:25 PM
From: Thunder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Brian - Thanks for the link. From the article: He concluded two days of landmark hearings, and started the clock on what should be at least two months of waiting for a landmark decision. While I'm less sure how far to 'read' the proceedings, with any accuracy other than there was certainly more of a scathing tilt towards (re against) the US overall -- TPJ arguments aside; two months seems on the long side. Appearing as they really did their homework on this (especially in the area of software specifics), coupled with the public statement of willingness to expedite it -- less than four weeks wouldn't surprise me the least. Thunder

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (56315)	2/27/2001 5:32:01 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

As a long time msft shareholder who bailed out in April 1999, I'm gratified to see that the magnifying glass has been turned in the direction of Justice (an inappropriate label if I ever heard one) Thomas Penfield Jackson. This judge's inexcusable and blatant bias has caused immeasurable damage to Mr. Softee, its shareholders, and the the entire tech sector. It's only fitting that he end his career with the sanctions of the appellate court ringing loudly throughout the judicial system. All at once, the awkwardly silent bunch of appellate judges spewed forth a river of venom castigating Judge Jackson. Apparently the judges didn't take Jackson's interviews with the press lightly. Judge David Sentelle hypothesized that "the judge must have some other ax to grind or he wouldn't be doing something so improper" and wondered, "What is the unbiased reason for judge to have secret conferences with reporters about a litigant?" Chief Judge Harry Edwards lamented that Jackson's actions were "beyond the pale," that his interviews make the "system look like a sham." Those words must sound like music to the ears of the Microsoft longs who held their positions throughout this fiasco. uf