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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13733)	10/27/1997 11:22:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Dan, I think the article you link to is an excellent analysis of the issues. I am heartened by the fact that the former head of the Justice Department investigation is supportive of the DOJ's current action. It may mean that my concerns about how this matter will turn out are unfounded. Nevertheless, I find Mr. Miller's statement puzzling: "Based on what we know today, I think [the government] should be able to make [a] showing" that the products are distinct," said Sam Miller, a former Justice Department lawyer who headed the original Microsoft investigation. Miller, now at Folger Levin & Kahn in San Francisco, added that the arguments laid out in the brief "are the traditional ways courts define what is a separate product, and looking at the evidence available, I would think that the government would be able to prove those points." Why all the qualifications? Why does he not just say unequivocally that the Consent Decree clearly prohibits the kind of conduct Microsoft is engaged in? What does he mean by "ased on what we know today," and "looking at the evidence available"? Known by whom? Available to whom? Known by him? Available to DOJ or to the general public? It's hard to tell from these printed statements what Mr. Miller really thinks of the government's case. Maybe he's very enthusiastic, and the twinkle in his eye, bounce in his step and emphatic gesturing just don't come through in this news article. Or, maybe he's just being cautious even though he thinks the government's case is strong. What I read from this statement is that Mr. Miller feels the government can put on a prima facie case. However, he seems more guarded about the ultimate outcome. And those statements about "what we know today" and "available evidence" bother me.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13733)	10/27/1997 12:01:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

Microsoft provides retail version of IE 4.0. Is this a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is being sued for? news.com

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (13733)	10/27/1997 5:23:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

But despite the strong focus on whether IE is one or two products, U.S. District Judge Thomas Jackson, the Washington jurist assigned to the case, is likely to consider a number of other factors in his decision, such as economic effect on consumers, antitrust attorney Ronald Katz said. "It's hard for me to believe that the judge is just going to look at the one product/two product question without looking at what was the purpose of the decree," said Katz, a lawyer at Coudert Brothers in San Francisco. "I think he's going to look under that and try to put some flesh on this analysis." I love to say I told you so, I admit it. So I refer you to my post of several days ago, where I said the thread was getting off the point in talking about all the details of the case instead of the reason anti-trust exists. And that the focus on this IE/OS question was a direct result of pro-Microsoft spin control. This is how spin control is done, by deciding what the conversation is about, usually a detail. Chaz