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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18950)	5/8/1998 3:18:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Microsoft Made Own Problems, U.S. Contends nytimes.com The good gray Times has been a little light on coverage the last week or so. I'd agree with the headline, of course, in the more general sense that the PR route on antitrust defense seems a dubious strategy, but who can say? The dueling court briefs are only one part of a growing legal and public-relations battle that has grown in recent weeks to involve computer-industry executives and two U.S. senators, as both the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general rush to decide whether to file a broad new antitrust suit against Microsoft in time to block the release of Windows 98. Microsoft has been pressing a multifaceted campaign to block any new suit. On Wednesday evening, Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, spent two hours trying to persuade Joel Klein, the assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust issues, that Microsoft had both a right and a responsibility to incorporate new products in its operating system. Both Microsoft and Justice Department officials said the meeting had done little to narrow the disagreements between the two sides. Once again, standard Microsoft business practice vs. the long arm of the law. Me, the Windows 98 thing is a sideshow, how can anybody be against an OS that sucks less? The broader issues are what I'm watching for. The article also goes into the little Hatch-Gorton tiff. Despite his recent meritorious service, Hatch is still on probation with the ilk for his role in stuffing the federal judiciary with Chicago-school types. Of course, Charles "Rick" Rules' enforcement moratorium means that there's not a lot of precedent to show at this point. Though Hatch isn't much in line with my politics, I'd consider the righteous Mormon a lot more honorable than the Newt / Dick "Breath" Armey wing of the party, even if his stance here is parochial. Slade "Salvage Rider" Gorton, on the other hand, is a hack. Hope the rich 'softies are enjoying all the clearcuts out there. Only done to preserve forest health, of course. "We had to clearcut the forest to save it". Cheers, Dan, slipping into late night rhetorical excess again.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18950)	5/8/1998 3:34:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Java at heart of DOJ case, paper says zdnet.com Oh dear, one last cite for the night as my second favorite subject gets rolled into my favorite subject. Java could be an integral part of the case the DOJ is building against Microsoft Corp., according to the Seattle Times -- in yet another report suggesting antitrust action against the big software maker is imminent. The paper, citing a person familiar with a draft of the suit, said officials at the U.S. Department of Justice are building their case in part around Microsoft's attempt to alter Java so that it only works with the Windows operating system. The Java programming language is designed to allow applications to run across many platforms, including non-Microsoft operating systems. Anybody got a url for the Seattle Times article? Meanwhile, from Bill's erstwhile favorite periodical, we have Windows of opportunity (sub) Dealing with Microsoft economist.com Should the launch of Windows 98 be halted? And, if so, has [Joel Klein] both the evidence and the stomach to file a broad Sherman act antitrust case against the world's most powerful software company? The answer is that if he has that evidence, he should act on it. . . Cheers, Dan.