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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (19885)	6/3/1998 2:50:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Ok, I'm going to concede pretty much all the legal points you make. But I want to concentrate on the link between legalisms and publicity when dealing with political entities. But you were going one step further, suggesting that Microsoft's lawyers were incompetent and that such incompetence was hurting the company. Yes because I view public relations expertise as an essential legal tool in this case. I also view the stupid emails and reported quotes as evidence that the lawyers did not do their job correctly. Perhaps it was because they were hampered by the corporate culture and were not permitted to exercise the powers they should have had. But something is amiss when all these quotes appear. Remember-- Microsoft went through this before in 1994. I read the book "Barbarian's and Bill Gates" which talks about having to save every document for perusal by the Feds. It's not like they didn't know that searching through email is how the DOJ works. >>Whatever happens with Intel and the Government(s), Intel has reaped far less bad publicity. SO? Let me put it this way. Bad publicity may do no harm to Microsoft. But it might harm them. Since the bad publicity was unnecessary, it demonstrated lack of competence. It's like running across the street with your eyes closed. Just because it might not harm you doesn't mean it isn't a dumb thing to do. I'll make a prediction. 20 State attorney generals will not be joining the Intel case. There will be no Senators on the floor of the Senate attacking Intel. And those Senators will not be writing letters to the FTC telling them of the 'critical importance' of this case, making it far easier for Intel and the FTC to reach a settlement. My Main Point: The public view of Microsoft is the be-all and end-all here. It affects the decisions and methodology of all government employees involved in this action. The best protection for Microsoft in the legal arena is to minimize bad publicity while not pissing off lawmakers. re: Gate's testimony-- I think they did the best they could with what they had. You really can't ask for anything more than that. Yes, I agree that the lawyers probably can't really control Bill Gates. Still, I have the suspicion that Gates would accept the argument "tell the truth up front and defend it rather than evade the questions" if properly presented to him.