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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (7807)	5/21/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Alan Buckley	Respond to of 74651

Well, all, having perused the text, I'd say this is the stupidest government suit I've ever seen. It's going to very difficult for Klein and the AGs to get out of it without looking flat-out silly. The DOJ seeks to force MSFT to ship Navigator with Windows98. Besides setting an absurd precedent this would accomplish absolutely nothing. Navigator is already easily downloaded by those that prefer it. Putting it in the 98 box doesn't make it componentized or integrated like IE is. No software house in their right minds would change their development plans based on this. They will simply refer to "IE-enabled Windows98" rather than "Windows98" as the platform their software runs on. As for the licensing language or "boot-up" screen...who cares? We've already heard from Dell and Packard-Bell that what their customers say they want is a "standard Windows system" for a reasonable price. DELL, who's made no complaints about MSFTs contracts, has reported 26000% growth over the last few years, better than MSFT. Meanwhile the government tells us they are representing the interests of such computer makers who are "under MSFTs thumb". Give me a break. It's even more hilarious that the DOJ lists Packard-Bell's Mal Ransom as a witness with his quote "there are no alternatives to Windows". Trouble is, Mal is also the guy who said the start-up manager tool thingy Packard-Bell shipped for a few years turned out to be a bad idea so they dropped it in favor of the standard shell. His cross-examination could easily be a DOJ disaster. Look for MSFT to follow the same strategy that won them the Apple icon suit. They slowly and methodically narrow the case point-by-point until it boils down to something so arcane it doesn't matter whether they win or lose. You gotta love the people rushing to get a copy of Windows98 before the government "saves" them from it, eh? This is a great country full of consumers who know their own minds...and a nest of idiot bureaucrats who assume they don't.

To: Bearded One who wrote (7807)	5/21/1998 10:43:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 74651

Bearded One, if you've bought a PC anytime in the last decade, you would know that the startup screens are indeed vastly modified from vendor to vendor. Nearly all if not all OEMs splash their logo all over the wall paper of the desktop. Go to a computer store. What more do vendors want? They can add any software they like, including Netscape Communicator, and some do. The HP Kayak workstation is a case in point. They have a shortcut right on the desktop to the preloaded and default browser Netscape Communicator. All Microsoft asks is that the start button/task bar be shown on the bottom of the screen, and a few of the standard windows 95 icons such as recycle bin, my computer, etc. Of course, after the first boot, users are free to minimise the task bar, rename my computer, delete my computer, delete the recycle bin, etc. For gosh sakes Windows is the most flexible OS out there, far more flexible, from what MS says, than Apple's OS. There's simply no case here. Sorry.

To: Bearded One who wrote (7807)	5/22/1998 12:40:00 AM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Respond to of 74651

The mada of all madas sez: chillum, grow up! Zap-mother knows best Solving Micro-problems Thu May 21 16:05:12 1998 SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- With all due respect to lawyers -- which isn't that much -- Zapman thinks this Microsoft thing has gotten completely out of hand. Billÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ If Bill Gates is right, consumers are the losers because the government is holding back innovation. If the government is right, then consumers are losers because Bill Gates is wrong. Either way, consumers lose. Oh, you think one side or the other will prevail, and that consumers in the end will win. Yeah, right. First of all, this case will probably end in a settlement so that neither side prevails. Second, that will take years, maybe more than a decade. Who wins? The lawyers, who collect hundreds of millions in fees. Who pays? Taxpayers and consumers, who, in this country, are one and the same. As you might have guessed, Zapman has a different perspective: both sides are wrong, and investors know it: MICROSOFT'S STOCK HAS LOST $30 BILLION IN VALUE IN A MONTH. I don't care where you stand on the issue, that isn't a good thing.ÿ It doesn't help consumers. It only hurts people who own the stock. Oh, you say, well co-founders Bill Gates and Paul Allen have it coming. But each already has more money than they'll ever need. Besides, Allen just filed to dump $280 million worth of his stake. (See a more objective account) What to do? As it happens, I have a unique resource for conflict resolution because I was raised by Zap-mother, the mother of all arbitrators. Example: if Zap-brother and I were fighting over the last cookie -- a common and nagging problem in most American households -- she'd eat it. Conflict resolved. She's a genius. So, let's ask Mom to address some of the issues at hand: ÿ Problem: Microsoft is allegedly telling computer makers they can't put Windows on new computers without loading Internet Explorer. ÿÿÿ Mom: "That's no problem. Microsoft is giving something for nothing. This is a bad thing? If computer makers want consumers to have a choice, they can add a Netscape browser. Do we really need to make such a federal case over this?" ÿ Problem: Microsoft is allegedly telling computer makers they have to use Windows' start-up screen instead of their own. ÿÿÿ Mom: "PC makers should learn to say 'No.' ÿYou think Microsoft isn't going to sell Windows to Compaq? Oh, sure, Compaq might have to pay more for it, but that's up to them. So, next question?" ÿ Problem: Justice says Microsoft is dominating the marketplace, but Microsoft says it's vulnerable to competition. ÿÿÿ Mom: "You're wasting my time. Netscape dominates the browser market. Call me when it doesn't." She's good, huh? But there was one more problem. How can Microsoft and the Justice Department get out of their war? As I recall, my mother had five words that brought an immediate peace every time Zap-brother and I went at it, and it was a killer concept. I now offer those words to Microsoft and the Justice Department: *"Grow up!! Both of you!!!"* ============================================ Yes'm, tell it like it is, mada.

To: Bearded One who wrote (7807)	5/22/1998 1:56:00 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

They are in favor of increasing choice by allowing the OEMs to set the startup screen and initialization process as they see fit. OEMs can already add whatever they want. Microsoft quite reasonably does not allow OEMs to redesign the OS or remove components. Whatever you think of adding Netscape to the Windows 98 CD, it certainly doesn't prevent Microsoft from creating products. True, but the preferred "remedy" of the doj - removing all internet-related features - does. All Microsoft has to do to win the case is show that putting in internet features improves the product. Conversely, for doj to win they have to prove that putting in internet features serves no useful purpose - that there is no consumer benefit.