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: John Donahoe who wrote (4089)	11/19/1997 2:02:00 PM
From: X-Ray Man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

John, before going to bat to defend MSFT marketing practices, at least get the criticism straight. Few, and certainly not DOJ, are complaining about MSFT wanting to distribute the browser for free. The complaint is about agreements with OEMs that sell boxes with the OS installed that preclude those companies from setting up the boxes without MSFT as the default browser. This is in the face of a DOJ decree from bargained agreement with MSFT precluding requiring bundling of applications with OS. DOJ position is MSFT is doing just that with the browser, MSFT position is that the browser is now part of the OS, therefore doesn't violate the agreement with DOJ. Whether it is illegal or not is in dispute, and if you can make a clearcut answer without having read any of the DOJ complaint or previous agreement between DOJ and MSFT, I am quite impressed. I feel it does hurt consumers that MSFT makes sales agreements with OEM box manufacturers that (1) require MSFT OS to be bundled with ALL machines sold (original dispute with DOJ) and (2) requires bundling of MSFT applications (including browser) with OS. Try to buy a box without OS... in our case it ships with it even if you don't buy it because they are required to do so and pay for it. You just don't get the licensing and packaging passed on to you. MSFT has gotten away with marketing practices that would never be allowed by anti-trust in other areas, precisely because DOJ didn't understand what was going on in the area of computer software, IMHO.

To: John Donahoe who wrote (4089)	11/19/1997 7:10:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I don't know anything for a fact. I was simply demonstrating how it can be illegal to do something in this society even if one's goals aren't realized. Whether or not Microsoft is breaking the law is not known at this point. As for your other questions, in anti-trust, free things can certainly hurt consumers in the long run by destroying competition. That's what John Rockerfeller did with Standard Oil. Every time you hear a complaint about some other country "dumping" exports into our country, the claim is that our consumers get hurt in the long run by desroying local companies. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the DOJ's current case against Microsoft. It may have bearing on future DOJ cases, however.