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: cheryl williamson who wrote (8468)	6/16/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Actually Cheryl, Microsoft is the leader in language runtime technologies, much to Sun's chagrin. There are many other areas where Microsoft is a leader, but an argument will be pointless. I'll say we're leading, you'll say we're not. When it comes to runtime technologies, unbiased, 3rd party tests prove the point. Mike

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (8468)	6/16/1998 11:33:00 PM
From: Exacctnt	Respond to of 74651

Cheryl, What's that you say, Microsoft isn't a leader in any kind of technology and they don't benefit consumers? Gee, I must have made a mistake when I bought and held Microsoft since 1987. You're entitled to your opinion, but as an investor I rely on what the market tells me. The market says that Microsoft is the premier high tech company and the proof is in its valuation. I'm an equal opportunity investor. I also own SUNW shares. Often I get the feeling that posters on this thread think that if you own MSFT, you wouldn't want to invest in SUNW, or vice versa. I happen to think that both are great investments. Regards, Bob

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (8468)	6/17/1998 3:50:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

MSFT neither is a leader in any kind of technology nor do they benefit consumers. You are speaking for yourself only, of course. This happy Win95 consumer (and based on sales of Win95, millions of others) marvel at the size of the chip you have on your shoulder for Microsoft.

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (8468)	6/17/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: Mick Mørmøny	Respond to of 74651

DOJ, Greenspan at antitrust odds By Dan Goodin Staff Writer, CNET NEWS.COM June 17, 1998, 1:45 p.m. PT news analysis -- Reinvigorated antitrust activity under the Clinton administration has forged its share of odd alliances and divisions, the latest example being the public debate yesterday between the nation's top trustbusters and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Greenspan said antitrust officials should not interfere with monopolists that keep their prices low, adding that the government should exercise a "higher degree of humility" before taking action. ÿ ÿ ÿ While he did not specifically mention the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust action against Intel or the Justice Department's high-profile suit against Microsoft, his comments rankled top officials of both agencies. "I hope when [Greenspan] sets the discount rate he exercises a great deal of humility," U.S. assistant attorney general Joel Klein told Reuters. Greenspan's comments are not likely to herald a shift in the Clinton administration's antitrust policy. Instead, they illustrate the tension that has accompanied anticompetition law since its origin in English common law in the 1600s. "This is an area in which reasonable people can differ," said Robert Lande, a professor specializing in antitrust law at the University of Baltimore. "Unless a bunch of people meet in a proverbial smoke-filled room to agree on prices, there's probably going to be disagreement as to whether an action is pro-competitive or anticompetitive." Disagreement has existed in every administration, said William Baxter, the former head of the Justice Department's antitrust division and a professor at Stanford University. "Antitrust suits your own purposes because there's no political constituencies that have to be mollified," Baxter added. Unlike issues such as abortion, governmental spending, and affirmative action, antitrust law does not tend to divide the populace into distinct groups. Due to the political ambivalence in antitrust law--and the unique power Greenspan holds--his comments are not likely to have much consequence. "Except for moral persuasion and the respect he generates, [Greenspan] is not in a position to affect administration policy," said Rick Rule, who headed the Justice Department's antitrust division during the laissez-faire Reagan administration and now consults for Microsoft. While the Reserve chairman is appointed by the president, he noted, the White House and the Federal Reserve are largely independent of one another. Rule added that Greenspan's comments reflect "pretty much the predominant view of economists, lawyers, and, most importantly, the courts over the last 20 to 30 years. If [the comments are] controversial, it's only because there is an effort by the current administration to overturn those notions." Under Clinton, antitrust enforcement has been more active than it has been in decades, experts agree. A recent wave of large mergers in the telecommunications, banking, and technology industries has combined with a more aggressive interpretation of the law. But University of Baltimore's Lande disagreed with Rule that Greenspan's comments reflected the prevailing view of antitrust law. Greenspan "is an enormously respected person, but he's getting out of his area of expertise," said Lande. "You don't get immunization just because you're a big successful company." One way to account for the divide between Greenspan and Klein is by examining their particular approaches to economics. Greenspan is concerned with macroeconomics, which deals with things such as interest rates, unemployment, and inflation--things that affect the overall economy. Klein, on the other hand, tends to view the world through microeconomic glasses, focusing on individual consumers, businesses, and industries. "Greenspan is a master of the macro, but [antitrust] is micro," Lande argued. "It's a totally different end of the economic spectrum."