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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Donahoe who wrote (13451)	10/21/1997 4:41:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>>Yes I agree. However I fail to see why this is such a big deal. The big deal is whether the practice violates the Consent Decree. That's it. We don't even get to the question of whether it's a violation of antitrust law. >>So what if MSFT stops the practice I see no significant impact on their sales. Not only do I see no significant adverse impact, I think it could be a positive for two reasons: (1) all the OEMs and resellers who don't want to upgrade their Windows offerings because they don't want to hassle with Internet Explorer would have one less reason not to upgrade, and (2) if they actually charged for Internet Explorer, the price of Windows could be reduced, further bolstering OS sales, and Internet Explorer could generate some sales of its own. The need for Internet Explorer to generate its own sales would also have positive effects on the internal Microsoft process of allocating research and development resources, both within the department responsible for IE and between IE and other Microsoft products. This, of coourse, assumes people actually want Internet Explorer. The DOJ allegations suggest that people don't want it.;) >> CNBC presented this as a major hit on MSFT. I don't understand why this is so. I guess it's a "hit" in the sense that it restricts Microsoft's marketing autonomy to some extent. But these demands are mostly trivial and are things Microsoft should be doing anyway as a matter of good business practice. So, I agree that this is not nearly as big a deal as it might appear at first glance. That's why I really don't think it's a battle Microsoft should be fighting.

To: John Donahoe who wrote (13451)	10/22/1997 2:51:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>> Yes I agree. However I fail to see why this is such a big deal. So what if MSFT stops the practice I see no significant impact on their sales.<<< This is a big deal. It is the government saying to Microsoft: "We are not going to let you wipe out a whole category in the software industry just because you have control of the OS." Microsoft can of course always buy products or fresh expertise to compete with the products of truly innovative companies. They can blatantly copy other folks concepts and soiftware. Thus SQL Server, Internet Explorer, Microsoft C, MSDOS, Stacker, etc. Name a category of product that Microsoft invented, will you? They are not an innovative company. The last new thing they did was push Basic to the top as a language for a while, and Bill Gates did that personally, driving his van around selling his tiny-basic port, as I heard the story. Circa 1976. That's a long time ago. If they are not allowed to demolish dozens of other companies through their monopoly power, there will continue to be companies that truly innovate, employ a lot of people, and make America technologically and economically strong and diverse. There in fact will be an incentive to innovate, because you can have some faith that Microsoft will not cut you off at the knees before you can profit from your ideas. Some people think that is a good thing. Chaz