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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (14061)	11/12/1997 8:53:00 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Jerry- If you look at the DOJ complaint this is a traffic ticket. If you look at Microsoft's responses, it's Murder 1. And I think Microsoft is right. But the system works like officer Obie's "full color glossy photograph pictures", 44 of the 45 pages get thrown out as not relevant. My feeling is that this is step one in a major antitrust effort to break Microsoft's grip on the software industry. I've experienced two of these so far (IBM and AT&T) before and after, and think that conditions are overdue for another one. Even more so because the pace with which a monopoly can exert its control is every so much quicker now. IBM and AT&T took decades to do their work, Microsoft just one. There was a post on this thread a while back about a five way split up of Microsoft. I think that is happening. Harvey

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (14061)	11/12/1997 1:09:00 PM
From: Reginald Middleton	Respond to of 24154

<While I would like to see the DOJ enforce the Decree and the antitrust laws, and with all due respect to their fine lawyers, the risk to reward ratio in bringing this case at this time does not add up for me. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having a hard time understanding why DOJ is doing this. Maybe someone can explain it to me.> Political pressure! The lobby against MSFT is growing and contains cos. with clout and cash. IBM, SUNW (note that these two companies are bigger then MSFT), NSCP, NOVL, and a lot more smaller ones that I probably never even heard of. If Janet Reno and crew get embarrassed, it is no skin off of the lobbyist nose. I must agree with your assertions. I actually don't see a victory for the Justice Dept. considering what I read of both sides pending arguments (I admit to not reading all of it). Just my arrogant opinion.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (14061)	11/12/1997 4:02:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Gerald, the operating system formerly known as Windows97 is a hypothetical. Now due 2nd quarter, which usually means June, but who knows, it used to be ready for December 97 launch but that would screw up the OEM's Christmas. I don't know what DOJ is doing either, and I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what the judge will make of it. I just enjoy following the news. I don't know, hearts and minds wise, Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing that well. They got Reagan's antitrust chief and some companies that need and fear them speaking on their behalf, and there seems to be a lot of backtalk, even old Fred Moody. I will point out, though, that the Microsoft line about integrating Windows with "the Net", circa 94-95, is pretty bogus. At that point, "the Net" meant MSN, proprietary, closed, Windows only. About 3 or 4 makeovers ago. Remember the big deal about the MSN icon in Windows95? Remember Nathan Myhrvold and his "prescient" New Yorker profile, where he talked about everything but the internet? Also talked about in my much-flogged James Glieck article. That was when people thought AOL was the next big thing, or maybe John Malone's "500 channels" of you-know-what. My reading at the time was that MSN was the roots of ActiveX and Blackbird and all that stuff. Microsoft didn't decide to "embrace and demolish" the internet till 12/7/95, a day that will live in infamy. Of course, I agree with you that this particular battle isn't likely to do much damage to Microsoft, it's just one battle in the war. I just wish old Stanley Sporkin was still on the case and they called Myhrvold, it'd be fun to see how far he'd get with the "Nixon dirty tricks" line on a Watergate veteran. Cheers, Dan.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (14061)	11/12/1997 8:50:00 PM
From: Barron Von Hymen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I agree that the fine of 1 mill per day would not impact MSFT's financial position that much, but what about their legal fees? I'm sure going against the DOJ with the finest lawyers isn't cheap. Also how do you feel about current valuations of MSFT? A $20 decline is not that much when considering that MSFT trades at multiples to its future earnings expectations. Directors of the board at MSFT including Bill Gates have been dumping 100's of millions of shares since June, at the same time expressing concerns that the share price has gotten ahead of itself. So I agree that it is not overvalued based on risk of 1 mill fine imposed per day, but overvalued based on current and future litigation expenses.