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: damniseedemons who wrote (15881)	1/7/1998 2:25:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Many on this thread have a rigid definition of OS. Microsoft is trying to redefine it (competitive motivations, irrelevant) Right, Sal, Microsoft has this habit of redefining words. Or, as Humpty Dumpty said in Through the Looking Glass, "Words mean what I want them to mean". Sorry, flippant and mordant as ever. Speaking of which, I caught your link on my usual cruising of the news sites, didn't really read it but was amused by the credit at the end: LAWRENCE J. SISKIND is a San Francisco attorney who specializes in intellectual property law. Mr. Siskind owns stock in Microsoft Corp. He hopes that his pro-Microsoft opinions, once published, will influence the price of his stock favorably. The expectation of financial gain has colored, if not dictated, the opinions expressed in his article. So, either Atty. Siskind or his editor has a sense of humor too, just like Ballmer and me. Cheers, Dan.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (15881)	1/7/1998 2:25:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>Many on this thread have a rigid definition of OS. Microsoft is trying to redefine it (competitive motivations, irrelevant).<<< Not irrelevant, more like central to many scenarios for the antitrust action's outcome. Likely to be made in the process are some real and whatever artificial distinctions are necessary to divide up the pie. Divide it between application and OS companies, that is. Analogies: The completely artificial, bogus distinction between long distance and local calls, for instance. Or the distinction between channels cable systems are required to carry and those they are not. Decisions need to be made, people need to be put back on their chairs, and distinctions will necessarily be made. Or alternatively, one maniacal monopoly will ruin a huge piece of the American computer business for years to come. Not that I believe this will be an international phenomenon. It won't. There are no Microsoft huggers in China. Every other country will be making money and picking up the pieces, ala the consumer electronics manufacturing business. Chaz

To: damniseedemons who wrote (15881)	1/10/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24154

CRACKING DOWN ON MICROSOFT ipmag.com Subtitle: Neglecting anticompetitive behavior in the computer industry could prove catastophic This is the companion piece to the article you posted, Sal, if you go to www.ipmag.com you'll see the 2 articles were published together as 2 sides of the debate. It goes without saying that this article is somewhat more in line with the views of the Microphobic among us. A trifle odd that news.com ref'd the Microsoft side first, but at least they followed up. The author of this article has a somewhat more impartial bio blurb, depending on your philosophy of course. The better part of the issue seems to be taken up with matters dear to my heart, I'd advise all to check it out. ipmag.com . A little dry for amusing excerps, make of it what you will. Cheers, Dan. Subtit