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: Alan Buckley who wrote (18665)	4/20/1998 11:48:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

This is clearly irrational says you, Bill, and Ayn. Me I don't know, I think rational is as rational does, and Bill's sort of overdoing the legal self-representation thing. He was sounding a bit random in that email to the Post today, sort of throwing off every line that's been tried for the past 6 months in one stream-of-consciousness thing. Microsoft isn't the first company to get in antitrust hot water, but its defense strategy is somewhat unique. To cite one equally rich and powerful company that sees merit in a somewhat different approach, we have to go to Bill's former favorite periodical. Unlike Microsoft, Intel has a clear idea of the obligations placed on a dominant firm and has a reasonable record of sticking at least to the letter of antitrust law. (from economist.com And, to recycle this weekend's post again, The Justice Department's action on Microsoft has everyone missing the point infoworld.com Popular Idea No. 5: Microsoft shouldn't be penalized for its success. Microsoft isn't being penalized for its success. Should it lose in court, Microsoft will have been penalized for violating the consent decree it signed, as well as the antitrust laws of this country. Microsoft's existence depends on enforcement of intellectual property laws. Just like you and me, it has to obey the others, too -- it doesn't get to pick and choose. I mean, who's the whiner here anyway? Cheers, Dan.

To: Alan Buckley who wrote (18665)	4/21/1998 1:59:00 AM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you believe the increased involvement of lawyers and bureaucrats in the software industry is going to make it a better place to work then we're so far apart we should just leave it at that. An argument along the lines you have chosen can and is being used by Tariq Aziz and friends in Iraq with regards to UNSCOM inspectors. Yes, I agree that increased involvement of lawyers and bureaucrats in the software industry is not a good thing, but it is precisely because of MSFT's own actions that this is required. Don't blame the enforcer of law for the actions of the law breaker. (a) it includes a young high profile industry and CEO, The industry is not so young. If you're talking about the PC -- 25+ years, the computer industry -- 55+ years. And it is precisely because the industry is so high profile that it deserves more scrutiny. As for the CEO, what does his youth or high-profile have to do with whether a case should be pursued or not? (b) the government seems willing to throw tens of millions in fees at it Are you talking about fees levied against MSFT? If MSFT is found to have broken the law, shouldn't they be penalized monetarily? (c) it pushes the anti-trust laws in exactly the place where they are weakest. Plese explain what you mean by this. MSFT's tactics are very sound business practice up until the point where they achieve some undefined market share 'x' after which they become horribly illegal. This is clearly irrational and the case, if pursued, will undoubtedly wind up in a Supreme Court ruling full of photo-ops for the expensive legal help. No, it has nothing to do with some magical market share percentage, but has to do with the power that a company is able to bear illegally. And there have been ample demonstrations of power that MSFT has exerted that could only have be done by a company with monopoly power. If this is irrational, then the entire Sherman Act is irrational and the entire US legal framework that relates to it is irrational. Starting to sound like you're the one who is being irrational.