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 (17985)	3/9/1998 11:22:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

But Microsoft's rise to dominance, some industry analysts say, also means the company must modify its corporate culture and behavior in ways that Gates and his staff do not yet seem fully to grasp. I think Gates grasps fully the nature of the changes. I think he also grasps perfectly well the fact that, if he makes the changes and learns to "live according to the rules that apply to monopolists," he will destroy Microsoft's most important asset, and, along with it, the company. What neither he nor the others there seem to grasp very well is the fact that, if he wants to remain a monopolist, he has to do it. As the Nathan Myhrvold comments you list in your post make perfectly clear, they are in denial. They want to have it both ways. The only way for them to preserve their corporate culture is by giving up their monopoly, either by putting Windows in the public domain or (my personal preference) by breaking up the company. I'll say it again: Microsoft has a choice to make. Microsoft can be big or Microsoft can be free. But Microsoft cannot be big and free.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (17985)	3/9/1998 8:02:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

Microsoft: Judge makes no sense news.com I guess he's just sort of a random kind of guy. In final written arguments to a federal appeals court, the software giant said the order should be vacated because it is based on a mistaken interpretation of its 1995 agreement settling federal antitrust charges. "No procompetitive purpose would be served by blocking Microsoft's integration of Internet-related technologies into Windows 95," the company said in its 19-page brief. In case you were wondering, here's a high corporate official's interpretation of the kind of competitive situation Microsoft's "innovative" integration strategy is meant to provide: In January, when the company's chief operating officer, Bob Herbold, was asked what competing software firms could do when Microsoft decided to fold a product into Windows, Herbold told Bloomberg News that they had three options: fight and lose, sell to Microsoft or "not go into the business to begin with." So much for Gates' professed concern for preserving consumer choice and dynamic, competitive markets. (from salonmagazine.com Oh well, another one of these things where nobody can accuse Microsoft of being small minded, in the hobgoblin sense. "We believe the preliminary injunction would have a chilling effect on innovation throughout the software industry." Or at least those segments of the software industry where companies with 90% market shares must leverage their monopoly into new segments, because it's "standard business practice" for them. Any other candidates come to mind? Meanwhile, back to that Salon piece: The message from Microsoft -- repeated over and over again at the hearing and anywhere else Gates is visible today, like the cover of this week's Newsweek -- is, We have to innovate or we will die! The government shouldn't stop us from innovating! This mantra might be persuasive if it didn't sound an alarm for anyone who knows Microsoft's history. Ding Ding Ding. Standard Microsoft business practice vs. the long arm of the law, who will emerge victorious? Whatever happens, there's sure to be plenty more ironically humorous news in the months and years ahead for us fans of the geek-set O.J. trial. Cheers, Dan.