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 : Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: damniseedemons who wrote (7407)	2/17/1998 3:35:00 AM
From: fut_trade	Respond to of 27307

<<Microsoft still thinks and behaves like a small startup company>> Hmmm, interesting. I've been getting the impression that they rip off the ideas of start-ups, and from time-to-time dump out software that is fat and slow and usually delivered well after they announce it. Peter

To: damniseedemons who wrote (7407)	2/17/1998 4:02:00 AM
From: Don Earl	Respond to of 27307

Hi Sal, Give us a break on the "Poor Microsoft, everyone's picking on them 'cuz they're jealous" routine. Anyone with half a brain, that has done any research at all, knows better. Regards, Don

To: damniseedemons who wrote (7407)	2/17/1998 8:09:00 AM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27307

>>But once you get past a certain size, I guess, it all becomes illegal? I'm confused... Don't be confused, Sal. Once a company has a monopoly, particularly a monopoly of an essential utility (Windows is now an essential utility...OEM's can't compete without it), any attempt to leverage and extend that monopoly into other business lines (read applications) through unfair competition or restraint of trade becomes a public issue and is subject to anti-trust scrutiny.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (7407)	2/17/1998 10:23:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 27307

Yeah yeah, we've dedicated an entire thread to this, I know. Er, as probably the prime dedicater of that entire thread, which used to be dedicated to something else, I'll add a few words of my own to the preexisting reply (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=3430424) I had ready when Sal posted a ref to his note there. But once you get past a certain size, I guess, it all becomes illegal? I'm confused... Make no mistake, the DOJ is certainly "picking" on Microsoft by scrutinizing anything and everything they do. Too bad Microsoft can't file an antitrust suite against the government: "they run everything!" I'll repeat my usual response to this line, which needless to say has been heard many times before. Unfair though it may seem, antitrust applies only to monopolists. What's a monopoly? Don't reach for your dictionaries. When it's convenient, the line from the Microsoft types is that it's impossible to compete with them, they're invincible. But when this prickly area of the law comes up, all of a sudden the subtle issue of fairness goes the other way. As a parent of young children, "it's not fair" is a whine I'm all too familiar with. A quote from a background article, predating the current court battle ( The antitrust maze news.com : The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890, outlaws all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate trade. In other words, it prohibits actions such as price fixing, bid rigging, and monopolization or the attempt to create a monopoly. Violations of the Sherman Act can incur either criminal or civil penalties. Price rigging and bid rigging are fairly straightforward, but the section of the law that prohibits monopolies is a gray area. The courts have ruled that a monopoly cannot simply be defined as a company that dominates the market. What is important is not whether you have a monopoly but how the monopoly was achieved. Companies are forbidden from leveraging their strengths in one market to dominate another. Example: If Microsoft achieves a monopoly simply by being the most efficient company with the best products, it would not be breaking antitrust laws. But if Microsoft is using its strong position in the operating system market to give it "unwarranted advantage" in the online service or video streaming market, Microsoft would be breaking the law. Sorry for letting others make my arguments for me, I know some people don't need to do that. It looks like there's an inherent conflict here between the law and "standard Microsoft business practice", as it's been explained to me so many time. How will this conflict be resolved? There's a standard procedure that's normally used, and people are working on it. Anyway, what's the antitrust division supposed to be doing? Is there some other ruthless monopolist out there they should be paying more attention to? Is there some more important area than the internet they should be paying attention to? I'm sure Charles "Rick" Rule would be operating antitrust in a different manner. Maybe someone like him will come in with the next administration. Cheers, Dan. Apologies to others in this thread, I'll go back to my regular venue now.