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: Dermot Burke who wrote (16013)	1/12/1998 9:51:00 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Respond to of 24154

Why Microsoft Takes Hard Line With Government nytimes.com

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (16013)	1/12/1998 9:56:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

Why Microsoft Takes Hard Line With Government nytimes.com The Times weighs in, in full depth this time around. E.g. a long article, bending over backward to tell both sides. Make of it what you will. As the courtroom confrontation resumes Tuesday, the question remains: Why IS Microsoft taking such a hard line? To find the answer, go back to the summer of 1994, before the Internet was a household word, long before there was a market for browser software. In 1994, after four years of government scrutiny, Microsoft, the Justice Department and Europe's antitrust authorities were poring over a proposed consent decree that focused mainly on slightly altering Microsoft's licensing practices. On July 13, 1994, Microsoft's legal team was in Washington going over the language of the decree. The draft of the settlement terms said that Microsoft was prohibited from tying the use of one of its products to another. But the provision in the decree included the qualification that "this shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products which offer technological advantages." At 10:30 p.m., Microsoft chairman Bill Gates called the company's general counsel, Neukom, and the head of the company's outside legal team, Richard J. Urowsky, a partner of the firm Sullivan & Cromwell, at a Washington hotel. Gates demanded that the last four words -- "which offer technological advantages" -- be stricken from the decree. Thus Bill, brilliant as he is, anticipated the "ham sandwich" defense long before it became an issue. Me, I stand by "IE is as integrated as Word or Excel", so it all becomes another one of those definitional things. Will Microsoftese carry the day in court? Who's to say. Once it determines that a new company is a threat, Microsoft can deploy its integration strategy with a vengeance. In September 1995, Paul Maritz, the executive in charge of Microsoft's operating-system business, met with executives of Intel Corp., the leading microchip maker. It was a month after Netscape had sold shares to the public and the Internet start-up was suddenly a hot company. When the discussion turned to Netscape, one Intel executive, who asked not to be identified, recalled Maritz saying: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free." So it was written, so it was done. Of course, even with the "kinder, gentler" Microsoft it is only prudent to ask for anonymity in the press context. The current battle is admittedly a bit odd, semantic ambiguity escalated into something else entirely. But, there's still the full fledged Sherman act lurking in the background. If anyone wants to defend the above statement in that context, be my guest. I doubt "standard Microsoft business practice" rates any better as a legal defense that Rand citations. Cheers, Dan.

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (16013)	1/14/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

Dermot: re: "but what about nscp?" Sorry, I was busy programming the last few days and didn't sign on. Since then a lot has transpired, with the earnings report, 15% layoff announcement, etc. But I wouldn't have changed what I said a week or two ago: I will buy nscp again at 15 and sell at 30 (or hope to.) I have faith in the company, but under the circumstances, I'm guessing one can hope to be able to buy at 15. If not, good for the current holders. I certainly wouldn't begrudge them, considering what they are up against in Microsoft. I think the layoffs are personally sad for the employees but are justified from the business point of view. As I have said before, I think the company let hiring and expansion get out of control, and have hit the wall (which is easy to do.) A little smaller staff should let them tighten up and focus their efforts. Chaz