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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (17957)	3/6/1998 8:09:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Spyglass, a Pioneer, Learns Hard Lessons About Microsoft nytimes.com Another old story from Monday's NYT, mainly of historical interest. While the Washington Post was busy puffing up politically naive Bill, that other major newspaper was exploring some interesting issues. This story's about the second biggest bonehead deal of the century, when Spyglass cut their own throats by selling out cheap to Bill. Of course, they held out for a while, Microsoft's original offer was $100k. Reggie will tell you whenever "free IE" comes up that it's no worse than Nav winning out over all the other Mosaic variants available at the beginning. Somehow, that's not quite how the Spyglass guys see it. Microsoft talked to Netscape about licensing its browser, then struck a deal with Spyglass in December 1994 for $2 million, for use with its Windows 95 operating system. Later licensing deals to use Spyglass technology on other operating systems, including Apple's Macintosh and Windows 3.1, and a final payment for all future use brought the total that Microsoft paid to Spyglass to $13.1 million. By the end of 1995, Spyglass had also licensed Mosaic to 82 other companies, including IBM and Digital Equipment, for use in their software products. The revenue stream from the licensing deals was around $20 million a year. But a month earlier, in December 1995, when Gates announced that Microsoft was shifting its product development to "embrace and extend" the Internet, he also said Microsoft would be giving its browser away. A byproduct was that the Spyglass browser licensing revenue quickly disappeared, as smaller Internet software companies went out of business and many big customers shifted to Microsoft's free browser. "Twenty million in revenues went away - poof - in a year," Colbeth said. So, there's another point of view. Colbeth isn't going to say anything bad about Bill and company, he just wants to stay as far away from them as possible. Colbeth Just Doesn't Understand that there's no place to hide. Cheers, Dan

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (17957)	3/6/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: John Donahoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

"....the DOJ have this outdated idea that it's their responsibility to enforce the law." This is an extremely naive and simplistic view. You don't really believe this do you? It really doesn't matter if the "law" is being violated. Justice simply wants to nail MSFT for political reasons. MSFT is just too big and successful for the public's and their competitor's taste. Any law will do. First demonize Bill Gates and MSFT. Then find some pretext and accuse them of violating some law. Dress it up in legal wording for the benefit of the ignorant unwashed masses, then declare them guilty. Thump your chest and declare to the world that you saved it from the evil one. This is also known as demagoguery. It's as old as civilization and it works very well on the simple minded. JD