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: nommedeguerre who wrote (19079)	5/14/1998 9:57:00 PM
From: Dan Guinan	Respond to of 24154

Let's all chat online about breaking MSFT up. Click on this URL on enter the chat: tisinc.com

To: nommedeguerre who wrote (19079)	5/14/1998 11:45:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Win 98 Consent Decree Circuit Court Order UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Appellant. No. 97-5343. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. May 12, 1998. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Before: WALD, WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges. ORDER Petitioner Microsoft Corporation moves for a stay of the preliminary injunction entered by the district court in this action, insofar as it relates to Windows 98, which is scheduled for initial release to computer manufacturers on May 15, 1998, For the reasons that follow, the stay is GRANTED. The United States objects that Microsoft should have applied initially to the district court. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) indicates a preference for that procedure but permits the motion to be made to the court of appeals if seeking relief from the district court is "not practicable." Decision on Microsoft's motion requires, among other things, an evaluation of the likelihood of success on the merits of its contention that Section IV(E)(i) of the consent decree does not bar Microsoft's sale and distribution of Windows 98 under the conditions that it evidently intends. (Those chances are, of course, the inverse of the United States's chances of showing that that section establishes such a bar.) The meaning of the consent decree is now before us, not the district court, and we have heard argument and deliberated upon that meaning. While the district court retains power to stay its judgment, insofar as that may affect Windows 98, see Rakovich v. Wade, 834 F.2d 673, 673-74 (7th Cir.1987), it is comparatively impracticable for it to do so when the appeal has progressed so near resolution. Whatever the United States's chances of winning permanent injunctive relief with respect to Windows 95 in the proceeding currently in the district court, they appear very weak with respect to Windows 98. The United States presented no evidence suggesting that Windows 98 was not an "integrated product" and thus exempt from the prohibitions of Section IV(E)(i). (So far as we know, it presented no evidence at all about Windows 98, and at oral argument appeared quite indeterminate as to whether it had any claim that the preliminary injunction applied to it.) To the extent that the preliminary injunction awards the United States relief to which it has made no effort to show an entitlement under the consent decree, we must grant the stay. Moreover, it has not suggested that it has any dispute with Microsoft's claims of technological integration. Under these circumstances any interpretation of IV(E)(i) which barred the distribution of Windows 98 under the conditions evidently contemplated by Microsoft would "put[ ] judges and juries in the unwelcome position of designing computers." IX Phillip E. Areeda, Antitrust Law P 1700j at 15 (1991).

To: nommedeguerre who wrote (19079)	5/17/1998 9:04:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24154

<The US Govt. is not charged with the care and representation of dynamic competition, it is charged with the care adn representation of the people who elected it. Your assumption that competition is to be protected in lieu of the consumer is ambiguous at best or flat out wrong as I see it.> Look up "Section 8 Powers of Congress" from The Constitution; they do have the power to regulate interstate commerce. They also have the power to wage war and employ economic embargos on emerging countries, that does not necessarily alter their charge to the American people nor guarantee that these actions would be made in the best interest of the American people. If Microsoft is really using "unfair trade practices" to build its empire then racketeering and not capitalism is at work. Hardly an environment which promotes efficiency or free-market forces. A corporation which has nothing to hide would not be reacting as desperately as Microsoft is. You sound as if you don't know how litigous this country is. Once sucked into our legal system, right and wrong practically flies out of the window and deftness, precision and craftiness take precedence.