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: Alan Buckley who wrote (19863)	6/2/1998 2:48:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I'd say the Apple case is an extremely weak parallel. That one was dubious from the start, and Microsoft wasn't even the primary target. Everybody knew the mac was a xerox knockoff. Plus, the whole case predated Windows 3.0. Not trying the case in the press, what an original strategy, obviously gone by the wayside. As for the brilliant handling of the consent decree, I'd say that one's going to come back to haunt Bill, if it hasn't already. You think Bill's weasel words will get into any future settlement without extremely intense scrutiny? It might have been ok if Microsoft showed any good faith in the effort, but they sneered at the settlement right from the start, and are sneering still to this day. Plus, we have Bill's brilliant last minute negotiating ploy in the current suit, where his carrot was pulled off the table before the other side even got there. Microsoft couldn't have made it harder to settle the case if they tried. Microsoft winning in court is a very big if at this point. There's all that email, with the "colorful" language, perfectly consistent with how we all know they operate. Do you think the "Mind of Reg(TM)" context defense will hold up in court? I'd like to Microsoft try it, needless to say. The process can be dragged out indefinitely, of course, but that's not going to help from the PR angle. A quick victory for Microsoft, I don't know how you figure that one. They're also still up against Judge Jackson, who they've shown so much respect for in the past few months. I'd say they'd best come up with something better that the old Chrysler car radio / We must be free to imitate, er, integrate, I mean innovate / beyond the comprehension of mere mortal lines this time around. For what it's worth, first of all I'd advise Bill to quit acting as his own attorney, but that's repetitious as usual. Cheers, Dan.

To: Alan Buckley who wrote (19863)	6/2/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

The AAPL "look and feel" case is the biggest handled by the MSFT lawyers to date. In that one, MSFT's strategy was to "refuse to try the case in the press" (Neukom speaking) and to slowly and methodically narrow the case. By the time they got to the Supreme Court there were only a handful of icons still in question, and AAPL looked weak for bringing the suit at all. I've read comments from John Sculley, AAPLs CEO at the time, that interpret the events along these lines as well. There are several differences between this case and the Apple case. The most obvious one is that they are not fighting Apple, they are fighting the US Government. The implications of this are, among other things: 1) The government has the (pardon the pun) home court advantage. 2) The government can change the laws to further its advantage. 3) The press is an extremely important field of battle. Just take a look at item # 3. Item # 3 means that Microsoft simply cannot win on technicalities. If they are perceived to have won on technicalities, then there will be popular approval for hurting Microsoft in some other way. Seems to me that's exactly what they are doing here. They got the DOJ to state in court that it's the icon, not the code, that they want removed. I think that's a weak position. As far as having the icon removed being a weak position for the DOJ, well, you've got to be kidding. It was a huge loss for Microsoft. Suppose someone put a 50 megabyte super-dooper program on your hard drive and DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT IT. Would you use it? The interface between the user and the computer is the key to all of this, and Microsoft and the DOJ and everyone else (well, I guess almost everyone else) knows it. That's why Microsoft cares about the initial screen, about the boot-up sequence, about the initialization processes, etc.. Look at what happened after the icon was made optional. Computer makers are actually removing the icon and in some cases substituting Netscape's at the request of some major customers. This is proof that the DOJ's actions increased consumer choice. The DOJ can (and will) point to NEC's IE icon-less laptops as evidence that they are on track. Nevermind the manifest problems of having Netscape standardized on millions more machines with all the negative implications for ActiveX, COM, Microsoft-Polluted-Java, etc.. And once that icon goes, well, what's next? Automatically running Netscape on startup? OEM-designed shells overlaying the desktop? It begins a path which might lead to future Windows versions being pushed down into the lower levels----the plumbing over which computer companies put whatever they want up on top. So yeah, this alleged 'weakening' of the DOJ's case came at a great expense for Microsoft.

To: Alan Buckley who wrote (19863)	6/2/1998 11:50:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Now that I go back to the original message, Alan, I see your point. I'll try to resist sarcasm and insults, but it's hard. By the time they got to the Supreme Court there were only a handful of icons still in question, and AAPL looked weak for bringing the suit at all. I've read comments from John Sculley, AAPLs CEO at the time, that interpret the events along these lines as well. Seems to me that's exactly what they are doing here. They got the DOJ to state in court that it's the icon, not the code, that they want removed. I think that's a weak position. See, I missed this incisive point that Apple sued over icons, and the consent decree action hinged on the sacred icon too. That's a similarity all right. Of course, the sacred icon was important enough for Microsoft to put Compaq against the wall on, but that's different, right? They got that little clause about "and successor systems" lopped off the consent decree ruling. The whole consent decree thing is now pretty much moot. Who cares what the rules are for Windows 95? That's true. The consent decree is not an issue in the current suit. Everybody thought the consent decree was meaningless as soon as it was made public. The suit filed recently is a totally different matter. You understand that, don't you? If MSFT wins in court, their PR problems will disappear. How much "look and feel" complaining is there today? I don't know, how much? Windows still feels sort of crummy to me, but I hear Windows 98 sucks less (sorry for slipping into sarcasm). The current suit is about business practices by a monopolistic company. Not about icons or look and feel. Microsoft's PR machine has gone all over the place in defending themselves, but none of the PR has said anything about the business practice thing. Of course, the wise investor who knows a good monopoly when he sees one likes the business practice end of things too, but again I got to say that, PR wise, the business practice thing is a problem, not a positive. Hearts and minds wise, cutthroat monopolists may be heroic to the Objectivist crowd. Do you really think the polls showing what a great company Microsoft is in the minds of the unwashed masses end up that way because they really believe "Bill Gates is John Galt"? I doubt it. Ok, I wasn't very good at resisting sarcasm and insults, I can't help it. Gerald may be right about Microsoft's legal strategy being effective, but how you see a replay of the Apple suit in this is beyond me. Cheers, Dan.