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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skipper who wrote (15061)	1/7/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

No, Skipper, we are not talking about a contract dispute, really, although Microsoft contracted with Compaq to provide operating systems for its computers. Compaq apparently contracted with Netscape to provide browsers for the same computers, as well. Microsoft said no way, we will not provide the operating systems unless you use our browsers also. Obviously, this was not part of the original agreement. Anyway, even though there were contracts involved, what we are more clearly talking about is the bullying of Compaq by Microsoft in a monopoly-building way. It is Microsoft, not Compaq, who broke the agreement between the two companies, by refusing to provide the operating system unless they also took the browser. Without the operating system, Compaq is severely compromised in its ability to do business, because unfortunately, in real terms Gates has just about sewed up a monopoly for his operating system (by just this sort of tactics). Skipper, in your conceptual totally libertarian world--where the way business works is that the biggest bullies have free reign over the entire planet, and are free to build absolute monopolies, and innocent, helpless children starve to death because of Darwinian principles playing out, and the rain forests are burned down and the oceans become devoid of life because of the inherent right to make a profit and act totally selfishly, Microsoft is acting in its own best interest, being slick and strong. But as I have stated many times, I don't believe that it is in the best interests of the world's population to have this kind of structure. Big business is absolutely, totally selfish unless there is reasonable governmental regulation. Absolute greed is not good!! Having said that, there certainly needs to be a balance, and a world run totally by the government is just as problematic. It is the balance which keeps both forces balanced and functional. I don't think we will ever agree in any way on this issue--our positions are just too far apart. You see the Justice Department as unethical, I see Microsoft's actions as unethical, and ne'er the twain shall meet, I'm afraid!!! But since Microsoft stockholders are also getting jittery, and the more vigorously and pugnaciously the case is defended, the more negatives there are for Microsoft, perhaps kharma will preside over the end of the affair. Ditto Nike, and that makes me very happy!!!!!!!