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 -- Should the DOJ Break it up? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HerbertOtto who wrote (51)	5/7/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: Kevin Hay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 144

DOJ-States Attorneys General gang up on msft, my take: All these states have constituents complaining about msft. The powers that be have to do something, or at least look like their doing something to get re-elected, thus this current action. Nothing, or very little at most will come of this, but at least the politicians driving this will look good to their constituency. The little software companies are the biggest whiners. From a survival stand point I can't blame them. From a user's point of view, I say #@!'m. I deal with so much shitty software from small companies that msft would not dare to even call beta, that I have virtually no sympathy. Small companies patent support refrain 'it works on my machine'. Personally, I'd like to see the DOJ step in to set some minimum quality standards on software. I think little companies are getting away with murder because all the attention is on msft. They get to release pure crap, and then blame msft for failing. This will change eventually. In the mid eighties did msft go to the DOJ and say 'waaa Lotus won't let us compete' 'waaa wordperfect won't let us compete' 'waaa IBM's building OS2 and we can't compete'..., etc And for the record, msft has not been able to beat Oracle or Quicken. *see, It can be done. The question is, can you code or not? FWIW, when IBM and MSFT were working together, the IBM coders were evaluated on the volume of code they typed -- blocks I think is what they called it...., very absurd. OS/2 deserved to die. The only thing that might/should happen is for msft to get cut back on it's 'tying' practices, where if you want this you have to take that. There might be a little of this to come out of the latest action, but nothing more. MSFT sells great code. Perhaps because they recruit from the top 3-5% of Ivy league schools? Perhaps NT is great because it's architect was one of the orignal designers of VMS?? Perhaps msft is successfull because it is ran as a series of small business units that sometimes compete with each other and are individually accountable? naaa, must be because Bill's beating up on everyone, and their coders are sabotaging everyone else.., yeah, that must be it. msft is not getting broken up. In 5-10 years we'll talk. For now, it's time to buy more msft, while the fear is rampant. cheers, -Kevin PS. If you don't like Windows, please get a Mac! or if you're really goofy, get an OS/2 machine. PPS. Apologies for not responding to any psychobable rants/replies.

To: HerbertOtto who wrote (51)	5/7/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: Jon Stept	Respond to of 144

DOJ- The IBM Precedent I got this from the IBM site. Let me know if it is slanted/biased/ wrong. Knowing what DOJ historical tendencies are will help predict what they will do with Microsoft. I will also get the ATT history. This example illustrates anti-trust principles. 1. The inability to purchase one product (Win95/punch cards) unless the another product is purchased/displayed (explorer/punch card machines). 2. Competitors start anti-trust cases (as opposed to citizen action groups, etc...). Disregarding technical feasibility, do you think if IBM built into the punch card machine a punch card creator that eliminated the need to buy punch cards that the DOJ would have made the same decision against IBM? (To create a more accurate analogy to the Explorer embedded in Win95). In my opinion, no. Jon :) ---------------------------------------------------- The Justice Department filed an antitrust case against IBM and Remington-Rand in 1932, alleging that the two companies, which controlled virtually the entire market for punch card machines, were illegally requiring customers to buy their punch cards. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Justice Department in 1936. In subsequent years, IBM's size and success would inspire numerous antitrust actions. A 1952 suit by the Justice Department, settled four years later, forced IBM to sell its tabulating machines -- at the time, IBM offered them only through leases -- in order to establish a competing, used-machine market. Another federal antitrust suit dragged on for thirteen years until the Justice Department concluded it was "without merit" and dropped it in 1982. IBM's competitors filed 20 antitrust actions during the 1970s. None succeeded. ---------------------------------------------

To: HerbertOtto who wrote (51)	5/8/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: Muffin Man	Respond to of 144

I read what you have written with interest, but I see no citations of specifically identifiable facts. Your points may be valid, but upon exactly what specific statements, cases, documents, etc., are they based? Many statements made about MSFT, such as their putting something in the code that can disable a competitor's software, sound interesting. But what are the specific facts behind the accusations. It becomes like the attorney who asks the person on the stand, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" 1. It implies that the person did beat his wife, or 2. It implies that he still does beat his wife. The problem is that nothing is ever factually established as to the actual validity of the charge behind the implication. It is a good trick for those who are successful in using it. Nevertheless, some of us have a little more ability to avoid being told what to think based upon mere implications. We like to hear all the facts of the matter. What are the hard facts, if you don't mind. Best Wishes, Muffin Man