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: mike iles who wrote (15300)	12/22/1997 8:32:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24154

<damage they could sustain is if they're forced to offer an OS with IE disabled. What they seem intent on pushing the court to do is to get real mad and make them take IE completely out of the OS > This is a breach of contract case, in which the judge already ruled in MSFT's favor. There is a plethora of precedence that supports MSFT's allegation that the judge overstepped his bounds in treating it like a anti-trust case without due notice. It is up to the plaintiffs to make motions and file peititions, not the judge. <regards, Mike [msft=$75]> I guarantee you that you can not justify this. Prove me wrong.

To: mike iles who wrote (15300)	12/22/1997 3:48:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24154

Dear Mike: Tying is the basis for part of the accusation but tying could not be proven. Tying works like this. A flagship product is sold having a market advantage at a competitive price but the manufacturer requires the buyer to also purchase other (sometimes associated), shall we say prosaic, products with the very dominant product at prices that enhance the companies profits not on the merits of the value of the tied products but through coercion in order to get the dominant flagship product. Hence the selling company agrandizes itself through a form of coercion by tying on overpriced products to the one dominant product as a means of improving their margins to the dealer's and/or consumers detriment. Actually IE has no margins as you can get it for free even if it weren't connected to Windows. True Windows is dominant as a flagship product but the attachment of the "free" product IE doesn't resemble tying at all as the product is free. True you can't buy the latest Windows w/o IE but it is also true that you can't buy a GM car w/o a Delco radio and the margins in the car stereo are far greater than that provided by the heavy steel but there are no tying issues here. IN THE CASE OF MSFT WINDOWS IS THE HIGH MARGIN PRODUCT AND IE IS NOT MSFT IS SELLING THE RADIO AND GIVING THE CAR AWAY. The deal here is that MSFT has agreed to supply an OS with certain features and the buyer has agreed to purchase same. MSFT, albeit heavy handedly but rightly so, has demanded that the product be installed on the PC's in tact. You and I are told the same thing by most maufacturers, that if we screw w/ the OEM version of the product w/o their OK we void the warranty. And basically that is the reason MSFT has taken this approach - they don't want the PC makers hacking their product TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE END USER. And now, ironically, the very companies that testified against MSFT are demanding that MSFT ship Windows and IE together. In the end MSFT can show they are protecting the consumer and since IE is free who is harmed since there can be no tying and the consumer is getting a bettter product. The predicament is is how to do it without exposing the banality of the judge and DOJ. MSFT is sensitive to this whole problem as they see tha intergrating of HTML interpretation as a new feature to be incorporated into all their products. Merry Christmas, JF Dowd