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: Charles Hughes who wrote (18550)	4/17/1998 3:08:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Meanwhile, the difficulty of the SAT test has declined 250-350 score points I think that has more to do with the fact that the SAT is a more widely taken test than in the past. Also, a larger percentage of the population goes on for higher education. When my father got his Masters degree in the early 50's, most people would question him as to why he was doing it. It was not very common. As to your assertion that advanced sciences such as nuclear physics being taught in high schools, I suspect that this was not very widely available, as I have not heard of anyone from earlier generations getting this sort of education.

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (18550)	4/18/1998 1:08:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>I'm saying the money was well spent. I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying there may have been better ways to spend it. We'll never know, though because the government taxed the money away and spent it according to its priorities. >I'm also saying that we may be in a declining stage of it, . . . To prevent that, the government needs to act again. And I'm saying that poor education may be as much a product of the essentially monopolistic structure of the public school system as it is of a decline in federal spending on science education. >I noted that tech companies have to have >products that give them a foundation. Also, the broken up companies will make >more money if each has at least one proprietary successful product allocated to it, >rather than all of them having by definition me-too products which they would have >to compete on price with. I do not think I missed your point as much as I disagree with your assumption that sharing of Microsoft's intellectual property as of the date of the breakup will not result in the development of proprietary products. I think the argument against letting them share is an argument against breaking up the company. My assumption is that Microsoft's various business units already share pretty much everything. (If not, well, allow me to offer a little suggestion . . . ;)) So giving them each one product to call proprietary means you are telling the others they do not have the right to use the intellectual property associated with that product, even though they already know everything that went into it. And these guys are not stupid, so if there is a good reason to circumvent the use restrictions, they will find a way. So, it seems to me that allocating products and use rights among various companies is going to do little to prevent commoditization, if that is your thinking. As for why letting them share will not prevent them from developing proprietary products, let me offer the suggestion that just because they all have access to the same technology does not mean they will all develop the same products. Over time, they will segment and specialize, each based on its comparative advantage. Over time, they will each have a whole host of proprietary products, unless of course they choose to adopt the Netscape open source model, which should be their prerogative. Opportunity costs will keep them form all focusing on the same products, while each company's presence as a potential (or actual) competitor will keep the others from reaping excessive and unfair monopoly profits on the products they do market. But, in thinking about your objection, and assuming you can overcome the fact that they already share the technology and other assets, let me offer the following modification of my original proposal: Microsoft should be allowed to allocate the development and marketing rights to its various products among the offspring companies in any way it chooses, subject to the government's right to require full sharing of the intellectual property existing at the time of breakup in those areas where not to share would result in one offspring company having a monopoly. Under this modification, each offspring would have whatever proprietary products Microsoft chooses to give it subject to the requirement that no proprietary product will result in the continuation or creation of a monopoly. What I would object to is for the government to decide which company gets to market what products or kinds of products. Leaving aside philosophical objections, it simply won't work. If you are going to that, you might as well go the DOJ -- regulatory sinkhole route. >Brands have value. Agreed. >So which company gets the lead designer, who gets the code maven, and who gets >the QA person? How do you get the employees to go for such a scheme? Some of >the companies find themselves with no engineering capability to back up their >product. Let Microsoft and the people whose careers are at stake decide. Any company that has holes to fill can hire from the open market. Now, I really would like to hear what your original proposal about breaking up the company was and what advantages it offers.:)