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 (18397)	4/9/1998 11:14:00 AM
From: Dermot Burke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Sal If I may barge in with the opinion that a Federal judge is within his rights to resist msft's attempts to remove a qualified appointment by the court.Due diligence was applied to Lessig's selection and the court resists the suggestion of otherwise.John Dowd's opinion notwithstanding.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (18397)	4/9/1998 2:12:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

By definition, a special master is someone with special expertise-- someone who's spent time studying the field in question. For an academic or a lawyer, that invariably means some sort of paper trial, which will most probably include opinions about companies in the field. Add to that the fact that most lawyers in the field seem to thing that Microsoft is a monopoly (check out ipmag.com and read the articles and letters). What you get is that Microsoft would probably be able to find a negative comment about them by just about any lawyer that might be appointed a special master. The ridiculous thing is, of course, that making negative comments about a company is not evidence of bias. Bias implies an inability or unwillingness to render impartial judgements. It has nothing to do with whether or not that judgement will be negative or positive.