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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Buckley who wrote (5854)	4/20/1998 6:00:00 PM
From: Dom B.	Respond to of 74651

And the stock made new high today!!! I think. Go Billy Go! Not the Kid.

To: Alan Buckley who wrote (5854)	4/22/1998 1:25:00 AM
From: Ibexx	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Alan and thread, ______ Tuesday April 21, 11:49 pm Eastern Time Judges sharply question government lawyer on Microsoft By David Lawsky WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - Three federal appeals judges put a Justice Department lawyer on the defensive on Tuesday, sharply questioning the government's antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. (MSFT - news). The U.S. Court of Appeals judges questioned the timing and rationale in the government case. Microsoft had appealed a lower court's preliminary injunction requiring that it sell computer makers a version of Windows 95 without its Internet Explorer Web browser. The company also asked the appellate court to bar the lower court judge from using a ''special master'' to conduct fact-finding hearings and report to him. Events have moved swiftly since the Justice Department first charged last fall that Microsoft was violating a 1995 consent decree aimed at increasing competition in the software industry. And the appellate judges gave every indication they knew what was going on outside their courtroom. The case before them -- which could takes weeks or months to decide -- would theoretically help determine the fate of Microsoft's Windows 95 operating system. In reality, its successor program, Windows 98, is set for release to computer manufacturers next month. Judge Patricia Wald asked Justice Department lawyer Douglas Melamed whether ''once Windows 98 hits the market, (the case) will ... be relevant.'' She observed the case may wind up in a ''time warp'' and wondered if anyone will soon want Windows 95. Melamed said PC makers may continue offering Windows 95, but conceded the market would be ''very small.'' In fact, the Justice Department is watching Microsoft closely as its senior officials ponder whether to file new broad charges against the software giant that would not depend at all on the 1995 consent decree. Microsoft lawyer Richard Urowsky argued that the lower court judge made a fundamental error in issuing his injunction under the decree and said the case should have been dismissed. The appellate judges were skeptical of the Justice Department's interpretation of a key section of the 1995 agreement. That section bars Microsoft from tying the sale of one product to another but permits it to integrate products. Melamed said Microsoft could integrate products only if they were not sold separately: For example, Internet Explorer is sold separately, competing with Netscape Communications Corp.'s (NSCP - news) Navigator browser, and therefore cannot be integrated with Windows 95. The judges explored that question with both lawyers. ''This comes down to what an integrated product is,'' Wald told Urowsky. ''In the end, what is an integrated product?'' ''An integrated product is a collection of software offered to computer manufacturers,'' Urowsky said. He said that any program -- such as Microsoft Word -- could be integrated into the operating system, although it would not make commercial sense to do so. Melamed said such a reading would make the provision ''entirely senseless,'' giving Microsoft complete freedom to mix programs. Judge Stephen Williams noted that most of the computer code for Windows 95 and Internet Explorer overlapped, adding: ''that would seem like an integrated program.'' Melamed also ran into trouble defending the preliminary injunction, which was granted by the lower court judge although the Justice Department had not sought it. Melamed said that the standard for a permanent and preliminary injunction were the same according to key antitrust precedent. Judge A. Raymond Randolph shot back: ''That can't be right.'' Even Wald, who is considered by legal analysts to be the most sympathetic to the Justice Department's case, proved unsympathetic to Melamed's argument that the preliminary injunction was justified because of the threat the 1995 consent decree would be violated. ''That's the not the way we hand out preliminary injunctions up here,'' she said. ______ Hilarious! Ibexx