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: Hal Rubel who wrote (8135)	5/29/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: Alan Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

[[The DOJ] 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.] I believe the court has already thrown out DOJ's complaint about the NDAs. The DOJ contends everything and hopes something will stick. This is not the strategy of someone with a strong case, IMO. Take the interest in what's said at motivational sales meetings, such as Ballmer's "to heck with Janet Reno" and Raikes' gag tape. This is the equivalent of a football coach saying "let's get out there and kill 'em". Interpreting such statements literally is ridiculous. Can you say "witch hunt"?

To: Hal Rubel who wrote (8135)	5/31/1998 1:15:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Hal - Microsoft never had any NDA requirement regarding responding to a government request. The NDA terms they used are a practice which is standard in every major OEM contract I have seen (and I have seen a lot of them) which restricts disclosure of commercial terms, and is designed to keep competitors in the dark. There was nothing out of the ordinary in MSFT terms, and the restrictions that SUN and Oracle place on such contracts are more onerous. I think the DOJ will have a hard time with this one. BTW CPQ, Dell and others provided full disclosure to the DOJ of all contract materials and records of meetings at the first request. Likewise there was never a restriction on what could be bundled, and all of the major players bundle lots of non-MSFT components with various systems, notably consumer products. CPQ was the first to bundle Netscape Navigator and has done so since before the first MS IE products. The use of a separate startup screen is a different issue - as people have pointed to with the AST example, MSFT has the right to have its product displayed as designed at least once, and to try and maintain a consistent user experience. Again, CPQ, Dell and others had various custom enhancements to the startup sequence which were done in a way which did not mask or eliminate MSFT components on initial boot. The question of including Netscape Navigator as an integrated component is more complex. MSFT did attempt to sway OEMs to feature IE exclusively, and many went along. MSFT was obviously very interested in generating interest and market share for its browser. The DOJ case will probably list the specifics in more detail than any of us really want to know, but I think this investigation is a proper exercise of the watchdog function. There should be guidelines on what is proper for MSFT or any company to do in terms of competitive pressure. But this is more like how the NFL refs determine 'unnecessary roughness' - the very designation shows that there is some roughness which is necessary to the game, and determination of what is OK and what is not is an ongoing discussion with moving boundaries.