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: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19411)	5/19/1998 1:28:00 PM
From: Thure Meyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

"But the DOJ is not micromanaging Boeing airplanes nor Sony's high resolutions formats. They (the other parts of the govt., not thr DOJ) are leaving the design up to the companies, and instead are imposing minimum (not maximum) requirements. This is far from the case in MSFT's current dilemma." You are missing the point deliberately (as usual). The issue is not the design of the OS, or what is integrated or not. Although by now you know my opinion about that. If you will, the proper analogy is how the FAA regulates landing rights at airports. Microsoft is in the position of owning the "airports" because of their monopoly on the desktop. That lets them decide who gets priority handling, and even lets them lock out competitors if they choose. It even lets them dictate to companies as large and successful as Compaq what they must do with icons. Furthermore, they have such a competitive advantage that it is conceivable for them to monopolize Internet access as well, thereby allowing them to get a piece of every transaction that occurs there. Technically it would be possible to lock out all competitors by refusing to cooperate in standards committees and not publishing interface specifics. Needless to say, Microsoft would do all of the above and this would be poison to all software innovation. The DOJ is completely within their charter to do what they are doing as well as (IMO) doing the right thing. They are not micro-managing the products, they are indeed trying to enforce a minimum code of ethics. When this is all over and new innovate products start appearing again, there will be a software renaissance with lots of new companies to speculate in. You will be thankful that the DOJ acted. Thure

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19411)	5/19/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: Justin Banks	Respond to of 24154

Reg - But the DOJ is not micromanaging Boeing airplanes nor Sony's high resolutions formats. They (the other parts of the govt., not thr DOJ) are leaving the design up to the companies, and instead are imposing minimum (not maximum) requirements. For any reasonable value of micromanaging, this is simply not true. -justinb

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19411)	5/19/1998 6:38:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reggie, >>But the DOJ is not micromanaging Boeing airplanes nor Sony's high resolutions formats. They (the other parts of the govt., not thr DOJ) are leaving the design up to the companies, and instead are imposing minimum (not maximum) requirements Obviously you have never been near the aerospace industry which is full of specs and regulations. Do you think that the FCC does not play a part in the bandwidth that HDTV will be using? Your satelite dish manufacturer did not go out and pick frequencies at random. Is it okay if I transmit microwaves through your house because its in my line-of-sight? Who's going to stop me other than the Feds. Face it Microsoft is in BIG trouble this time. Like that rich brat who thought he could smart-mouth his way out of a caning in Singapore. "Why do I care about the law? Hain't I got the power!" --Vanderbilt Cheers, Norm

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19411)	5/19/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>>But the DOJ is not micromanaging Boeing airplanes <<< That's done by the FAA, the NTSB, The CAA, the DOD... >>>nor Sony's high resolutions formats.<<< That's done by the DOC, the FCC, the NBS... >>>They (the other parts of the govt., not thr DOJ) are leaving the design up to the companies, <<< What planet do you do engineering on? Yes they generally assume the company will come up with most of the designs and proposals. Then they check them out, in excruciating detail. >>>and instead are imposing minimum (not maximum) requirements.<<< Well thank goodness the government isn't saying Boeing can't make the planes too good. What's your point? Chaz

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19411)	5/19/1998 10:54:00 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Regimond, You are confused by the facts. You're too close to (or too awed by) Microsoft to think objectively. The government isn't telling Microsoft how to design software, or not to innovate. That's (obviously) all Microsoft's PR spin. Per-processor pricing on Office? Didn't they sign a consent degree on that one for Windows back in '94? I recently bought a new Dell, and asked them to delete Office 97 from the order, since I already have a license I bought for my former machine, but no way. No credit. I paid for another copy of Office 97 I didn't want or need...at any price. Microsoft is still free to make any kind of software applications it wants. What it cannot do is leverage a monopoly to force distribution. If Boeing bought (or licensed design plans from) Pratt & Whitney and then legislated that all 7x7's be outfitted solely with Boeing engines (or "priced to include" Boeing engines), you can bet the DOJ would be all over them in a heartbeat. That's not telling Boeing how to engineer airplanes, that's keeping Boeing from exercising monopoly power to stifle innovation in aeronautical engineering. Many of us spent 1996 trying to explain all this to you here. Microsoft got greedy. Microsoft screwed up. They reacted to Netscape's challenge in a negative fashion. Microsoft exists entirely by the grace of the law and must operate within the law...no matter how important they consider their mission to be.