SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Fidelity Select Sector funds -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Angler who wrote (4027)11/2/2001 7:05:33 AM
From: Julius Wong  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4916
 
Angler:

The market bottomed at the end of September. The bulls gained control after October 4.

Julius



To: Angler who wrote (4027)11/2/2001 11:02:57 AM
From: LKO  Respond to of 4916
 

I'm heartened by the Government's move to settle the litigation with Microsoft. I bought a stepping stone into FSPTX today.

It was a shame that one of our stellar companies should have been harassed so badly by the Justice Dep't. at the urging of competitors and other sore heads including some state attorney generals all ambulance chasers at heart


Well, this is the wrong soapbox, but I will make an off-topic
rant too. <G>

It is a shame that a stellar (and capable) company stooped low and so badly that it got caught twice (first time 1987 ?) doing
illegal acts. It is a shame that the paid-for-by-highest-bidder Bush DOJ is letting them get away with a slap on the wrist. No need to split them, but should have fined them HEAVILY and taken away some of the LOOT from
the CRIMINAL ACTIVITY to atleast help pay for Govt. expenses in these multiple investigations. It may not seem so for the shareholders in the loot, but long term such behavior hurts America. Mere 5 years of looking over their shoulder is probably less than slap on the wrist.

I own stock in MSFT and many of its competitors.
Some of those competitors have over the years also tried (but not successfully), similar criminal behavior but not gotten away with it probably because they did not have monopoly or backed out when the fingers were pointed (but not for lack of trying).
These opinions based on reading DOJ web site "exhibits" and having followed the DETAILS in this one and the late 80s investigation details from my armchairs over the years. <G>



To: Angler who wrote (4027)11/10/2001 6:18:39 AM
From: iopo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4916
 
The US government is always spending tax payers' money after then-most monopolistic companies after they have already lost their competitiveness. what a shame! it is going to happen again, i guarantee.