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: ed who wrote (63)	5/9/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Muffin Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 144

>>Maybe the government itself is the problem of our society , and block the progress of human civilization !!!! << Dear ed: When the President of the United States bypasses the US Legislature by Executive Order, and legalizes the sale of missile staging and guidance technology to the communist Chinese as Bill Clinton has just done, and the CIA thereafter confirms that those same communist Chinese have between 9 and 19 missiles aimed at the United States (reported this past week by the national media), you would certainly be wise to ask where is the DOJ investigation of that treasonous act. Your statement above is confirmed factual by your own president, for it is his aid to the communists that now endangers human civilization. Best Wishes, Muffin Man

To: ed who wrote (63)	5/9/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: Mike Robinson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 144

None of the companies you cite has a MONOPOLY on their product. Big difference. If you have a monopoly, it is illegal to use the power of that monopoly to branch into other products. Question remains, does MSFT have a monopoly? On the home desktop, they have what amounts to a monopoly. But there are quite a few other operating systems out there (UNIX, OS/2, Mac, mainframes) so in my mind MSFT does not really have a monopoly. On another tangent, the gumint is woefully ill-prepared and slow-footed to keep up with the rapid pace of changes in technology. I think they just discovered there IS a company called Microsoft a few years ago.

To: ed who wrote (63)	5/11/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: energy_investor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 144

Sorry, your examples do not compute. Using your "Ford" analogy, try this: Suppose Ford initially started out building the chassis. Over time, it was able to convince the engine makers, tire manufacturers, etc. that, if they decided to standardize on this one chassis (Ford), they could all compete and the public could decide which components to use in the car. The car industry really took off, and after a few years the only real chassis in town was the Ford chassis This success was due in part to the fact that the Ford chassis was sold to assemblers of cars at really low prices to drive out of business any other chassis maker. In addition, Ford had a neat contractual provision: you can use any other chassis, but we will charge you for ours even if you sell the other one. So, the Ford chassis became the standard. But then Ford decided it wanted to get into the engine and tire making business. Ford started working on a new engine and tire knowing that it would soon be changing the specs on its chassis. It let the other makers know but,"forgot" to tell them of all the emerging changes in the specs while "accidently" keeping its own R&D people in the loop. When the new chassis came out, it turned out that only the Ford engine and tires really worked properly, so the new Ford vehicle quickly gained market share.(Some say that the new chassis was designed such that only the Ford engine and tires would ever work properly). Then Ford had a brainwave; why not require the assemblers to use only the Ford parts -- if they didn't, then Ford would no longer ship the chassis to this assembler (which would drive the assembler out of business, but what the hell). Gradually, the engine makers and tire manufacturers went out of business. Occasionally, an entrepreneur would find a better way of building tires, or a new engine, and Ford would either drive them out of business, buy them out, or announce they would be building the same product (often after stealing the ideas of these upstart newcomers) Soon Ford was building 80% of all the cars in America. Some said this was good for consumers since they now had complete standardization. Moreover, the next step would be to gain control of gas stations and anything remotely connected with cars. After getting such control, Ford could charge what it wanted because, well, there was no more competition. Of course, there was always a group of dedicated Ford stockholders who would yell "communism" at the first sign of any attempt to break up this all powerful enterprise. But, in the end, Ford WAS broken up. The stockholders did very well. And everyone at last had a chance to buy a car in any color they wanted.