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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (42609)	12/17/1997 7:46:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 186894

Barry, I own Microsoft and I hate the thought of the Justice Dept getting involved in the PC industry. But in this case, I agree with you. Microsoft stepped over the line when they said they would withhold the OS to Compaq unless they removed Netscapes browser. It was a dumb move on their part, if true. Just goes to prove how important they view controlling the browser is to their future. How's this for a browser war! news.com Michael

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (42609)	12/18/1997 7:53:00 AM
From: ratan lal	Respond to of 186894

Barry << I can't understand Microsoft's position on this, or the stance that they are taking with the DOJ in the courts. They may get burned big time. >> Big time is not the word. Remember the old saying 'you cant fight city hall'. I guess gates and gates(dad) have forgotten that old lesson. Witness the beating that tobacco took. For one unlawful (alleged) activity, they will sue you in a hundred different ways. Bill may have his billions but the lawyers want their day in front of the cameras. ratan

To: Barry A. Watzman who wrote (42609)	12/18/1997 11:15:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Barry: As an intelligent person you don't understand this because the case vs. MSFT is not being brought by intelligent people but rather by political hacks. What MSFT said in their heavy handed letter was that CPQ could not remove the Exploreer when they placed alt. NSCP on the desktop. It is just like when you buy a computer and alter the mother board - in many cases that voids the contract of warranty. In this case what CPQ was doing was a breach of the contract w/ MSFT. A contract that they had entered into with their eyes wide open. I will grant you as I have above that the letter from MSFT to CPQ was heavy handed and could have been writte with a more delicate and instructive touch but it was not incorrect from a point of contractual obligations on the part of both parties. For furrther erudition I refer the following as a great exposition of the entire matter. microsoft.com JF DOwd