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: Dermot Burke who wrote (19099)	5/15/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I just saw that movie last night. It's hard to find a recent science-fiction movie that doesn't have spaceships exploding with massive sound effects. I liked it just for that reason alone. And Uma Thurman, natch.

To: Dermot Burke who wrote (19099)	5/16/1998 4:40:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

You didn't like Gattaca? I thought the rockets on the horizon almost poetic. It wasn't the worst movie I ever saw, not by a long shot. But the concept had so much potential, I thought they could have done more with it. But, you're right, the rockets were poetic, in a surreal sort of way . . . That would be a '95 consent decree all over again. I think things are too urgent (win 98 with the integrated browser would get installed on the approximately 90 million machines anticipated to sell thru the balance of the year ) and Klein is way too smart. I agree that DOJ is way too smart to get duped twice. Did you see the Wall Street Journal article on Klein? It was an interesting discussion of his background, his confirmation hearings and the like, point being, he's got to prove himself, and Microsoft is as good a case as any to do it. One interesting comment, which makes sense from his point of view, is that, sometimes, it is better to litigate than to settle, in order to set precedent for future cases. Two things I have having a very hard time with is getting a handle on: DOJ's motives, if any, for wanting to settle, and Microsoft's long-term strategy. I don't disagree that they should try to avoid getting into a protracted lawsuit with DOJ, and I understand that they don't want to break up the company, but I really do not understand how this confrontation/ capitulation/ negotiation strategy, where every three years we get a lawsuit from DOJ, then Microsoft caves and agrees to a new round of regulations, and then the cycle starts all over again, is supposed to work. How is Microsoft ever going to get the monkey off its back? One of these bright analysts like Readerman or Mary Meeker should ask Chairman Bill to explain it.