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 (17729)	3/3/1998 1:22:00 PM
From: Pink Minion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Not a trick question, Dan, nor the same question that we've been through "a million times before." Please try to better understand my posts before attacking/dismissing them. Sal, It is if you have a monopoly. And I think this is the point that you all can't comprehend. What is a monopoly and why we have laws they should abide by. For those of you (like Bill himself) that says "Microsoft is not monopoly" is just like calling us idiots. This is what makes me so mad. HEY IDIOTS, YOU'RE SO STUPID WE ARE NOT A MONOPOLY. HEY STUPID, IE IS PART OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM. HEY IDIOT, WE ARE INNOVATIVE. WE DON'T COPY IDEAS HEY STUPID, PC SOFTWARE COST ARE GOING DOWN. Where's Dilbert? Mr. B

To: damniseedemons who wrote (17729)	3/3/1998 2:01:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

Legalities are based on 'How' more that 'What.' Microsoft can Balkanize Java as long as it does so within legal methods. I suppose in this case that would mean not using its monopoly powers to coerce third parties to support its adaptation of Java over Sun's version.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (17729)	3/3/1998 2:01:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Sal, if you wanted something about antitrust law, you should have said so. I got confused by the "in legal terms, but not referring to copyright law" and read it as not in legal terms. Sorry. I don't pretend to be an expert on the law, remember I'm the naive high school civics guy. Offhand, I'd say that Microsoft trying to subvert Java would come under the broad Sherman prohibition on using monopoly/dominance/hegemony in one area to establish dominance in another area. Leveraging Windows to kill or dominate the market for the "Java platform". But as everyone except Reggie seems to say, it's a complex area of the law, who knows what the precise argument would be. As I said, at this stage I give Microsoft credit for at least being relatively honest about their hostile intent, which wasn't the case before this summer. Cheers, Dan.