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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: synchro who wrote (439)	4/17/1998 3:42:00 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

That's Jim Barksdale.

To: synchro who wrote (439)	4/17/1998 7:40:00 AM
From: micromike	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5853

I find it somewhat strange that Netscape chief Clark Barksdale is claiming MSFT is a monopoly, yet when he so cleverly asked for a show of hands in the Senate hearings on people whose use the Netscape browser, a great many number of people raised their hands. What a farce. --- You must have been sleeping because when they asked Mike Dell how his business runs he said he supplies what the consumers demand. Then Sen Hatch asked him to explain when a few of his aids called up wanting a system with Netscape Dells employees told them they only provide IE and can't supply Netscape. This is the problem when a company controls 90% of the O/S market. They control the equipment suppliers like Dell and the unknowledgeable consumer doesn't get a choice and at the end of the day the best product doesn't win so the consumer once again loses and good companies who did all the innovating gets knock out like Netscape. Don't you think innovating companies deserve better than this? JMHO Mike

To: synchro who wrote (439)	4/17/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5853

Synchro: I like your take on anti-trust laws. I understand that you are re- reading "Atlas Shrugged". Here is a quote from Ayn rand that makes a lot of sense. Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for intent to monopolize; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for "unfair competition" or "restraint of trade"; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for "collusion" or "conspiracy." There is only one difference in the legal treatment accorded to a criminal or a businessman; the criminal's rights are protected much more securely and objectively than the businessman's. AYN RAND daverose

To: synchro who wrote (439)	4/17/1998 1:56:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

Please tell me if you really believe that microsoft is in the position they are in because they have a better mousetrap. If you really believe this, then there is no point in continuing this discussion because you have no understanding of the reality of their products. Virtually everyone with any respectability in this industry (And absolutely every employee of Microsoft that I know personally) agrees that the quality of most of microsofts products is quite low. This is not a company that got where it is by "building a better mousetrap." The only people who believe that, in my opinion, are those who have an agenda they want to advance and are latching on to this claim without regard to reality. From DirectX to Windows to Word, when all of these products were introduced there were superior, lower cost, higher featured competitive products in their category. Alas, you, like a lot of people out there, are depressingly vague when you say Microsoft "violated the law" or "cross the line." What law? What line? I thought this was common knowledge: Microsoft required every computer manufacturer who licensed their software to pay them a license fee for every CPU they sold, whether or not it carried microsoft software on it. The DoJ investigated, MS admitted wrongdoing and signed the consent decree. They then violated that consent decree and are in hot water now. Another example: Microsoft hired some of the developers who created Quicktime and had them replicate their code for Microsoft's product. Of course, there was a slip up and the word got out, so they settled with Apple. Luckily for Apple, Jobs is smart enough that Microsoft now simply pays Apple a license fee every year for all the technology they have stolen. Unfortunately for Apple Microsoft is making a lot more on the technology than Apple is. In case its not clear to you, it is against the law to violate a copyright. Yet another Example: Microsoft stole the code for a drive compression utility (stacker). A jury awarded a $120 million judgement against Microsoft. I could go on and on about things I saw and experienced, and heard about in my time there, but these you would discount because I cannot prove them. The above cases have court records to back them up. Dragonfly