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: DiViT who wrote (60567)	8/13/2001 1:55:42 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 74651

Which weaken the FUD they like to regurgitate to this thread. Such as?

To: DiViT who wrote (60567)	8/13/2001 2:16:09 PM
From: werefrog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

"Which weaken the FUD they like to regurgitate to this thread." Bearbot is the chief regurgitater, the secondary mention in your post is merely a clone. Frog

To: DiViT who wrote (60567)	8/14/2001 12:51:51 AM
From: margie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

"Microsoft Finds a Formidable Foe In the New Antitrust Chief James" by JOHN R. WILKE, WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 9, 2001 interactive.wsj.com requires subscription This article was in last Thursday's WSJ. It doesn't look like Charles James is a friend of MSFT, nor is this Republican administration, IMO. "Microsoft lobbyists didn't want the Bush administration to nominate Charles James as antitrust chief, and quietly backed other candidates. Their concerns were well-founded." Mr. James has continued the government's aggressive prosecution of its antitrust case against the software company." To no one's surprise, the DOJ responded MSFT's motion for a stay by urging the Appeals Court to deny the stay while the Supreme Court considers petition for certiorari. ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov I didn’t think it was a good sign that the new antitrust chief filed his first motion in the MSFT case less than a week after he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate; another bad sign.) Jame's motion urged the Appeals Court to rush this case back to the District Court for a trial on remedies long before Microsoft’s right of appeal had expired-trying to deny them their due procedure. It took Microsoft's competitors years of complaining, years of contributing to politicians, years to form PACS, hire lobbyists and PR firms, plus "other" large financial outlays to finally convince Joel Klein to bring this antitrust case. James didn't need much time to examine the antitrust merits of this case. One week. "We want the appeals-court process to run its course and move this case to a final resolution," Mr. James said. Sure...but the DOJ does not want the appeals process itself to run its course. "What about the argument that a tough remedy could derail a rebound in technology markets? Mr. James doesn't buy it. Not at all." James says: "This case will be decided strictly on the antitrust merits by the court, and pursued on those merits by this division. Period." " yeah right This chief doesn't look that different from Joel Klein or Mario Monti, maybe even worse than Klein and on a par with Monti - hypocritical, naive, or just ignorant. He also righteously claims that politics is not involved in antitrust actions. Charles James said: "The politics and the public relations are of no consequence to us -- we're making law-enforcement decisions on the facts and the evidence. Once you decide that, everything gets a lot simpler." What rubbish... Then why is Senator Schumer involved? Why would the Senate consider holding hearings about Windows XP, in response to complaints from Microsoft's competitors, who are constituents in Schumer’s district? The big question: Will James include Windows XP in any possible remedy? Although he claims he won't get involved in the issue, it looks like he has already decided that remedies will apply to Windows XP, from this statement quoted in the article. "If the case goes back to a new district-court judge this fall, as the appeals court ordered, "there will be a remedy, and it will apply to the products Microsoft is selling," Mr. James said. "That's the law." “Mr. James rejects the label of regulator. "What we're doing is the antithesis of regulation," he said. "It's law enforcement. We don't look at a market and say, 'This is the way it should be.' We go in only when there's been a market failure." When competition fails, he says, "we will not be reluctant to intervene, and to be aggressive." Spoken like a true politician. James gives lip service to a broad statement that market forces produce the best results for consumers and business; yet he doesn't really believe that. He really believes only government intervention and regulation can correct market failures; not market forces. He believes that the government must intervene and regulate aggressively to 'fix' the free market. And who tells him when the markets have failed? Competitors, of course. James admits they listen to what competitors tell them: "The company that we investigate this month invariably will be in here a year later as an affected party, or a witness with a complaint."