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: Bearded One who wrote (19861)	6/2/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: almaxel	Respond to of 24154

More garbage from Redmond: news.com Ralf

To: Bearded One who wrote (19861)	6/3/1998 12:14:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Bearded One, you put me in the uncomfortable position of defending Neukom -- not something I particularly want to make a habit of. I didn't mean to imply that the DOJ or FTC or whomever will sit back and let you take over the world as long as you act nice. Well, certainly the government, correctly, is not going to let some lawyers' personalities or litigation strategies, however benign or obnoxious they may be, dictate government enforcement strategy. But you were going one step further, suggesting that Microsoft's lawyers were incompetent and that such incompetence was hurting the company. And here's the FTC's top lawyer recommending a suit: news.com Notice the part in the middle where it says the FTC is looking at filing a broader suit revolving around Intel's intellectual property tactics. I'm telling you: in litigation, it's best to get everything out in the open and take a stand. Otherwise, it just gets worse and worse. My point is that, however rocky the process of getting there, the outcome Microsoft got is better for them than what they would have gotten had they taken the soft-peddling approach. Whatever happens with Intel and the Government(s), Intel has reaped far less bad publicity. SO? And that means that their pursuers will have far less political interest in pursuing them. Compare that to Microsoft saying, in essence, "prove that you can be tough enough to take us down." Well, Microsoft is certainly the bigger and more glamorous target, no doubt about it. One of my points is that Microsoft remains a target regardless of whether they make "nicey-nice" or not. It is interesting to note that the government's demands in their last negotiating session corresponded directly to the remedies being sought in the complaint. In other words, it wasn't really give and take; the government would first try to get what it could in negotiation, then sue for whatever Microsoft didn't cave in on voluntarily. Now, from a public perspective, Microsoft caving in would be a good thing, since the government could then move forward to the next round of demands without having to spend a lot of resources to get this round satisfied. But, from Microsoft's point of view, it's not a great outcome. Perhaps, but what is the utility of these objectives? 1. Keeping the code base intact and minimizing government interference in the software design and distribution process better protects their product, trademark and OS monopoly. 2. Educating the public about the inadequacy of government software design capabilities keeps public opinion sympathetic to their view. OK, so their progress in achieving the second objective wasn't so great. ;) Microsoft could have shown up the government by asking for clarifications early on and stating their problems with the ruling. Their negotiating position would, I think, have been a lot weaker. The government would have asked for more than it ultimately did, and any settlement probably would not have been for so little. When the government came out and said Microsoft was being unreasonable, that all they had to do was remove the icon, it sort of put them in a box. Having made the statement in public, they had to agree to it as a way of settling the issue, and voila' -- the stipulation. Obviously, I'm speculating here, as I wasn't privy to negotiations, and we'll never know what might have been if Microsoft had done what you suggest. The only* effect of their doing all this in so public a manner was the public relations disaster.* Well, it wasn't the only effect, but it was a public relations disaster. In five years, it will be forgotten. The correct answer to this question is Yes. This answer was going to come out no matter what. Therefore, Bill Gates had to say Yes. That would have provided Gates an opportunity to defend the practice. And what would he have said in defense of the practice? He was ill prepped by his lawyers. I think they did the best they could with what they had. You really can't ask for anything more than that.