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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (516445)	10/24/2012 12:01:59 PM
From: LindyBill	3 Recommendations Respond to of 794015

I first ran into the Sherman Anti-Trust act when I went to work for P&G in 1958. They had just had to back out of the purchase of the Clorox company because of the Gov. They claimed that although P&G would not have a monopoly, but they were too good a company to be allowed to purchase Clorox as they would be able to come to dominate the market. Stopped for being good at what they do.

To: miraje who wrote (516445)	10/24/2012 8:59:42 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

I wish that Gates had told Clinton's DOJ to go straight to hell back in the 90's when our own government was attacking one of our most successful companies. MSFT held the cards, but Gates wussed out. A little Atlas Shrugged style non compliance would have gone a long way in restoring true free enterprise to our economy., IMO.. Seems Gates was mugged by the notorious liberal Orrin Hatch. See Message 28432835

To: miraje who wrote (516445)	10/24/2012 11:43:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794015

I wish that Gates had told Clinton's DOJ to go straight to hell back in the 90's when our own government was attacking one of our most successful companies. MSFT held the cards, but Gates wussed out. A little Atlas Shrugged style non compliance would have gone a long way in restoring true free enterprise to our economy., IMO.. Personally, I think MSFT had it coming. But the case was about the wrong thing. Back around the same time (maybe a little before or after), DOJ went after Walmart pharmacies for selling drugs at below cost, with the intent of driving out competition after which, of course, they could charge what they wanted -- a clear case of predatory pricing. MSFT did precisely the same thing, when it gave away copies of Excel and Word with OEM distributions of Windows. Borland, at the time, had vastly superior competing products (particularly, Quattro Pro, which was far better), but there was no way they could sell the product when MSFT was giving it away. Totally predatory, and it had the intended result. MSFT could have been beaten on this, IMO, and I'll never know why they weren't taken to court over it. There is a place for antitrust regulation. Unfortunately, it is applied very inconsistently depending on who is in office at the time.