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: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8130)	5/28/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: Scotsman	Respond to of 74651

Yes, I was not meaning to infer that Gateway was definately being forced, but the headline does. Is this a mistaken headline? I don't know. This entire stratagy is a legal one. Its like when someone signs a waver than gets hurt. A favorite tactic is to say " By having this person sign a waver, the owner of the waver knew that there was danger. If not, why would he have had them sign the waver?" This is similar. As far as the break up, it is just that MSFT is so intertwined between OS and Apps, along with the communications, that it will rapidly become easier to cut the Gordian Knot than untie it. Not to mention the publicity you have stated, and also the face saving if the DOJ and the AG's start getting the crud beat out of them, especially if they start to think that MSFT is not being honest. I would have to imagine the relationship between MSFT and their opponants is rather strained. But not to worry, I doubt it will get that far. Even if it did, MSFT shareholders will make a killing in the end.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8130)	5/28/1998 11:50:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Monopoly RE"I find it odd that Gateway hasn't come clean and acknowledged what the exact terms of past contracts have been. I am opposed to exclusive contracts with OEMs, simply because it limits the choice for consumers as to what they would like to have preloaded." Interesting to me too: Dwight, its not odd to the DOJ. They have contended that Microsoft's ability to pressure box makers into signing contracts with such strong non-disclosure clauses is in itself evidence of monopoly power and of its abusive exercise. This very issue will apparently be part of the suits. Even the DOJ has not been able to see most of these documents, so far. The box makers are apparently obligated under these contracts with Microsoft to put up a legal defense against regulators to insure non-disclosure. A half or faint hearted defense by any one of the box makers could be damaging by opening the doors to all other box maker's contracts thus exposing previously secret Microsoft business practices to direct public scrutiny. HR PS: Some box makers seem to be starting to break from the Microsoft front. Gateway may be a weak link here. Though I do not think they have turned over contractual materials to the DOJ, as yet. I believe they have verbally described them to regulators in such detail that the DOJ can now subpoena them. This conveniently gets the boxmaker off the legal hook with Microsoft by over riding the non-disclosure terms of the contracts.