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 (15291)	12/21/1997 4:23:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Microsoft Warming to the Government It Ignored for Years nytimes.com Well, in a manner of speaking. This is in the spirit of that Washington Post piece reprinted in the Seattle Times, I saw that at the source beginning of the week, but didn't want to post it as it has these "corrupt Gov. vs. Noble Bill" tone. I've always had this problem seeing Microsoft as the political waif here, what with Bill's concerns always being at the top of the agenda on trade negotiations and such, but maybe Microsoft has just overestimated the worth of Bill's personal rapport with that other Bill and the Veep. As Microsoft gears up for next year, some Washington power brokers wonder whether the company will genuinely shake off its aloof posture or simply throw money at the issues that matter most to its future. "They are hiring big guns and blundering at the same time," Nader said, echoing a widely held opinion among some industry leaders and Capitol Hill lawmakers. Nah, this is a total misreading. Mr. Fischofer has assured the faithful in the How High thread that in 6 months, Microsoft will have the most feared lobbying organization on the Hill. Politics ain't nothing compared to the imponderable complexity of "browser/OS integration". The company's response this week to the Justice Department action -- impolitic and condescending, some say -- is a case in point. "From a legal standpoint, there is no justification for that position," said Murray, reiterating Microsoft's stance. "We have not been able to get that message across. And the issues are very, very technical and very intangible. You cannot look at software code in the same way you look at a car or tank of gas." It's just too complicated for mere mortals to comprehend. They're liable to think something stupid, like "uninstall" means uninstall. They just don't understand Microsoft. One senior Republican staff member of the Judiciary Committee said that attitude could make Microsoft more enemies than friends. "You look at their approach to this case, it's fairly contemptuous to the government," the aide said. "It's like 'What on earth are you guys doing meddling with us' and that has been their approach to Washington. Swatting at gnats." Right, how can the government of the most powerful nation on earth dare compare itself with Mighty Microsoft? They got this government idea all screwed up. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do for Microsoft". Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (15291)	12/21/1997 4:34:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

from www5.zdnet.com, a zd week in review thing: Microsoft on Monday committed an act that will forever be known as "compliance with a raised middle finger," to quote the San Jose Mercury-News. In complying with a federal court order barring it from tying Internet Explorer to the Windows 95 operating system, Microsoft said it would offer PC makers either the same thing they have now, or older versions of the operating system that wouldn't work well with today's systems. This decision inflamed an already testy Department of Justice and may well have set in motion what could become a bitter, protracted antitrust fight. It may not matter; many have argued that such battles do not end until well after a decision would actually influence events. But it could in fact turn into something much worse for Microsoft than needed to be. Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is known for brow-beating reporters and others who challenge him by asking variations on a theme of just how technical they are. The message: no technical pedigree, no respect. This is the card Microsoft played this week, in complying with the absolute technical letter of the law. It may have played that card at just the wrong time. I don't know about that no technical pedigree qualifier, as near as I can tell with Microsoft, the line is basicly "no respect", no matter who you are, unless you've got something Bill wants and you're getting the proverbial offer you can't refuse. Or maybe I'm just misreading things. Institutional arrogance seems to be a highly esteemed value up Redmond way, but maybe it's all an act, or a funny mind game. Cheers, Dan.