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 (15341)	12/22/1997 6:50:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 24154

Dear Mike: You argue a case against your own prophetic exageration. Thw Phillipine matter is one of piracy I believe-what is the connection? If tying =foresight than let all visionaries be bridled by DOJ!

To: mike iles who wrote (15341)	12/23/1997 2:38:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>Again in my opinion, MSFT would be smart to rethink their fundamental strategy >because what they want just ain't in the cards. Using the OS monopoly as the >cornerstone of their strategy is flawed. It's a lightning rod for the opposition. Maybe >they should do something like break the OS part off into a separate company ... >somehow I think it will take them a long time to reach that conclusion, if they ever >do! I know your post is a long way back (man, this thread is hard to keep up with -- I pity the poor newcomer who is told, when he asks a question, "Go back and read the thread"!). But, in response to you, I want to say, "DITTO"! They need to rethink what their company is about, what its values are and how to preserve those values in the current environment. There are two appraoches to monopoly. One is to regulate it like a utility. Let the government decide what your rate base is, determine what products you may sell, and set the rates you may charge. The other is to break it up, like DOJ and the federal district court did with AT&T, and let the pieces of the old company operate freely in the market. Right now, the direction Microsoft's management and the DOJ seem to be taking the company is towards ever-greater regulation: the Government and Microsoft agree to a Consent Decree, which says, "You can't do this, you can't do that," and every time DOJ and Microsoft get into a little tiff, they settle it by modifying the Consent Decree, adding, bit by bit to the ever-growing list of things Microsoft can't do and to the degree of power the government exercises over Microsoft's business. So what is Microsoft's response? Get involved in the political process. If you're big, like they are, you've got to have a "presence" in Washington. So, I guess Microsoft is going to hire a boatload of paid lobbyists who will shuffle quietly down the corridors of power and kiss the a-- of every important and influential politician and bureaucrat in Washington in the hopes they won't add still more items to that list of things Microsoft can't do. And they are going to have to pay them (and the politicians) well, because, in the new, populist political environment that is emerging, Microsoft will be utterly dependent on, not its own skills and ambitions, but on its lobbyists. Man, that is sure going to look great -- Microsoft paying "soft money" political contributions to the successors of Gore and Clinton. I can't wait for Janet Reno, or whoever the AG is, to appoint special prosecutors to go after all the politicians who accept Microsoft's "dirty money." Instead of buying influnece, Microsoft is going to buy itself a big, fat scandal! To make matters worse, every minute they spend honing their political skills is time not spent in the competitive market place. Pretty soon, their skills get dulled, they get a stake in the status quo, and then they have to spend still more money to preserve that status quo. And they line up along with all the other special interest groups at the feed-trough of government handouts. And the more they spend, the more special subsidies and exemptions and tariffs they get through their lobbying prowess, the more the public hates them. Kind of like Big Tobacco. I think they need to rethink their approach to this antitrust problem and choose a different direction. They're at a fork in the road, and they have to ask: Which value is more important -- size, or freedom?