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 (15477)	12/23/1997 5:32:00 PM
From: Geoff	Respond to of 24154

Hi all, I never thought I'd go near MSFT, or this thread, but the DOJ moves made me move in. I just got out of my Jan 130 puts, and am looking to ride this stock down to the bottom, but am not sure what to make of this dramatic sell-off. Where is the bottom? I would like to hear some opinions re: the DOJ and end of year selling. Does anyone think that MSFT will continue to slide at least until 12/31, especially when you think that most traders are on vacation, and that the DOJ is really hammering away at MSFT? Could this selling also be attributed to people clearing out this year's gains coupled with the DOJ? Basically, I'm wondering how bad you all think this situation for MSFT really is. I would like to short, but don't have the guts, so I'm left with options. Due to my uncertainty I am looking at straddling MSFT, but before I do, I'd like to hear some more opinions. thanks, geoff

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (15477)	12/23/1997 5:44:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

They are a corporate citizen. They employ a lot of people and they have a duty to those they employ as well as to those that invest in their stock to insure that they have exercised all due diligence in defending themselves from suits brought by whomever and that is their right under the laws of the land. You seem overly impressed with government and the injudicious wielding of its powers. The government does very little to create wealth in this country in fact they tend to do the opposite. Our government has become just what the framers were trying to avoid - we now have an elected monarchy and all, from giants such as MSFT to lowly types such as you and me, must kiss the royal ring. And to what good end one might ask?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (15477)	12/23/1997 6:02:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Money is what rules in Washington game sjmercury.com This is a rebuttal to that Washington Post story, reprinted in the Seattle Times, about how politically naive Microsoft has been blindsided by the D.C. faction of the incredible ilk. I'd say the Mercury has a better handle on the issue, but who can say? Until the Justice Department sued Microsoft in October, alleging violations of the 1995 consent decree, it was widely assumed that Microsoft had plenty of clout in Washington. Not only was the decree relatively toothless -- only Microsoft's supreme arrogance has resurrected its effectiveness -- but no one failed to notice the company's close Washington ties, notably the ease with which Gates summoned Gore to shill for Microsoft at the CEO schmooze-a-thon. Then there was Congress' gift to the biggest software companies, Microsoft leading the pack, with its 1997 tax break, estimated at $1.7 billion over 10 years, on exported software. It was pure corporate welfare -- and corporate welfare doesn't just happen in a vacuum. Not to mention my favorite, Bill Jr. going to bat for Bill Sr. wrt. the real People's Republic and Bill Sr.'s problem that the Chinese don't quite seem to have the proper understanding of the sanctity of intellectual property rights. Much more important that all those stupid bleeding heart issues, like Tibet or missiles sent to Iran, or the forever ballooning trade deficit we run with China, or China's peculiar view of what democracy should look like. But again, that's just me. Microsoft's latest public-relations stance holds that its rivals have had the unchallenged ear of powerful Washingtonians. This is a dazzlingly cynical view of the world, and fails the reality test. But it's a convenient target. Well, as usual, reality is in the eye of the beholder, some see it in the briefs filed by Microsoft's lawyers. And finally, a little something for the naive faction of the ilk: But we, the people, also need to remember what's at stake. Microsoft wants to use its monopoly on the desktop to control the choke points of tomorrow's commerce and communications. There may be no more important question of public policy than how we deal with this unprecedented grab for power and wealth. Let's hope, perhaps naively, that there's an honest reason for what's happening today in Washington. Let's hope that the career lawyers in the Antitrust Division genuinely saw the danger in Microsoft's activities and that the new division head, Joel Klein, had more backbone than his predecessor. And let's hope that conservative Republicans, such as U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, are asking the right questions about Microsoft for the right reasons. But as this issue unwinds, let's also follow the money. Of course, Microsoft knows the ropes on cutouts and laundering, I'm sure. They didn't sign off on the U.S. delegation to the ISO on Java, but, but, but... Just remember what Funk and Wagnall's said about Bill, before a more "appropriate" conclusion was put on that piece. Cheers, Dan.