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 (18519)	4/16/1998 5:49:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>The answer is simple, ingenious, and, when Gates goes through with it, sure to produce far more ferocious torrents of outrage than its de facto monopoly does now. Gates figures within two or three years to break his company up into at least three and possibly as many as six different companies: Microsoft Operating Systems, Microsoft Applications and Microsoft Media for sure, and possibly BIOS, consumer products and communications companies as well.<<< Hey, damnit! That's my plan! I've been pushing it for months. Where's my percentage! I'm outraged by this validation of my thinking. Er, that is... Cheers, Chaz

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18519)	4/16/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Intel Court Ruling: Implications For Microsoft? zdnet.com An interesting article for Gerald Lampton, if nobody else. This refers back to last summers? Digital patent suit against Intel, at least the issue showed up there. Last week's Alabama federal court ruling enjoining Intel Corp. from engaging in discriminatory practices involving its intellectual property could have some implications for Microsoft Corp. in its ongoing antitrust suit with the U.S. Department of Justice, said one Microsoft foe. The court barred Intel from giving advance technical information about new processors to some companies and not others, and refusing to license patents on CPU buses to makers of competitive chipsets and motherboards. But what was most significant about the order was the legal principle on which it was based: the "essential facilities doctrine." The essential facilities doctrine states that when a dominant company gains control of anything to which others must have access in order to compete (an "essential facility"), it must not deny access to the facility as a way of inhibiting competition. For example, if a company owns all of the railroad tracks in town, it cannot deny access to competitors who need to use the rails. And so on. I'm sure the Microsoft side, unhindered by the famous hobgoblin of small minds, will have no trouble arguing that nothing Microsoft sells is an "essential facility", in this particular context anyway. Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18519)	4/17/1998 2:42:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Letters to the editor, on Bill's behalf: salonmagazine.com There's a contest going on, and some good potential entries around here. Example entry: To the Editor, Wall Street Journal: I have followed Microsoft's recent legal controversies with some personal interest. As the target of a recent spate of antitrust actions brought by my own children -- who maintain that I have monopolized the affections of their mother -- I am well aware of the mental anguish accompanying this kind of litigation. Was it Dr. Johnson who said, "The law is an ass"? Lay off, Washington! The Sherman Act was never intended to apply to software. Yours -- Jason Blackwell III Darien, Conn. I think they cribbed the last sentence from Reggie. Cheers, Dan.