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: M31 who wrote (8155)	5/29/1998 2:27:00 PM
From: Carlos Blanco	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Are consumers really free to "annoint" microsoft? Or are they just being herded like so many sheep while microsoft buys out and "cuts off the air supply" of upstarts and competitors? You should ask the consumers. Even if they were to act like sheep (which I don't think they do), they would certainly have a right to do so, no? Are you also anxious to introduce regulation on the fast-food industry because most people are "sheep-ish" enough to eat burgers instead of filet mignon, or onto the record industry because "sheep-ish" consumers like to listen to Madonna instead of Mozart? You seem to think that you are wiser than the average person. Presumably you're not a "sheep" and know what's really better for us all, and you can predict that having Sun or Netscape take or maintain marketshare from Microsoft will result in a "better" marketplace. And you would like to have the government impose regulation in order to support your opinion. I make no such claims of clairvoyance or wisdom. In fact I make exact opposite claim: that neither I nor anyone can predict the future or make a ruling wrt. one product being "better" than another for all consumers, and that consumers and producers should be left unregulated to decide for themselves with their dollars and their products. And yes, such a marketplace process does encourage competition between producers. This includes talking about putting your competition out of business and metaphors regarding air supplies. --Carlos

To: M31 who wrote (8155)	5/29/1998 11:34:00 PM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

M31, View like yours never cease to amaze me. Since your so concerned about the "responsibility" that Microsoft should exercise since its in a dominant position, I assume you feel that Netscape thoroughly abused its dominance when it had 85-90% browser share, was thumbing its nose at the W3C standards committee, added new features to internet protocols and HTML numerous times monthly in an attempt to lock out others from participating in the HTTP server/browser market. You remember. Don't you? This was when Goldman Sachs said Microsoft's major growth was over and that they had no Internet strategy. Stock dropped like a rock from 118 to the 80s (20s now after 2 splits). Funny thing was, nobody sued Netscape or accused them of abusing a monopoly, not even Microsoft. At Microsoft, we just worked like crazy, sometimes days in a row without sleep, for a year and built a browser that won all major reviews against Navigator. We weren't sitting around thinking "how can we trick the public into using our product?" We were doing everything we could think of to build the best internet platform in the world, no matter how anyone might try to portray or rewrite the events of that time. Perhaps you feel that any company should have the freedom to innovate and compete as long as it isn't Microsoft? Message 3640967 Thanks, Mike

To: M31 who wrote (8155)	5/30/1998 12:55:00 AM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

M31 <<Re: Microsoft buying out and cutting off the air supply of upstarts and entrepreneurs>> Well, let's see here. If I (MSFT) buy you out (the entrepreneur), seems like I've done the opposite of cutting off your air supply. Seems like you hit the jackpot. Perhaps you should remain altruistically "unacquirable" to promote diversity in the market even though it is against your own self-interest. Better yet, the DOJ should sue to prevent you from selling out to a competitor and thus reducing competition in the relevant market. After all who better to save all us fallen sparrows in society from dreaded monopoly than the biggest monopoly (uncle Sam). ...reductio ad absurdum. ...reductio ad absurdum. Hey, no barriers to entry there. Just hang out your shingle and claim sovereignity. Become a taxing entity.. a new cottage industry of Uncle Ernies, Toms, Harriets and Bruces is born. Bastiat wrote to the effect that governent is the attempt of everyone to live at the expense of everyone else. Huey Long said " hey, brother, we ain;t gonna tax you; we ain't gonna tax me - we gonna tax that guy over by that tree"...reductio ad absurdum. I, on the other hand, take it as an axiom that the State should remain neutral in the free market of free individuals. That's why we have a tort system of law - individuals who have suffered injury can seek redress there. One of the few legitimate functions of government along with defense, imo. But, the State can do only two things - subsidize and coerce. Perhaps you believe that the State acts altruistically for the common good. Fine, except neither have any basis in fact. Altruism cannot be institutionalized for if it were, then it would have to have permanence of existence, which is impossible. If it were not to act to perpetuate its own existence,i.e, act selfishly, then it would not exist to act altruistically.. reductio ad absurdum. .. reductio ad absurdum. The common good does not exist other than an abstraction, as Rand points out. In a society based on individual liberty, who other than individuals could better decide what was in their individual self-interest. So, with respect, your rhetorical "ruffles and flourishes" to Carlos' reasoned post, in my opinion, simply reflects the naivete of a statist running out of arguments but long on ideology. Believe me, I know. I was a good little socialist myself until I was 35. I urge you to reexamine your views on the role of government viz. the free market in a society based on individual liberty. Decide which is dearer to you - your liberty or your trust in the State to act altruistically.Liberty or some form of slavery. The razor's edge. Coerce and subsidize - the twin levers of government. Seems to me that either way some gets treated anything but neutrally. I'd just as soon let the market decide rather than some nabob in DC trying to cling to his power over us all. Ciao, Daniel W. Koehler