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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20151)	6/23/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: Jay Rommel	Respond to of 24154

Maybe Bill Gates will follow Phil Jackson footsteps and retire after a grand victory ;-)

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20151)	6/23/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

<Reggie, you are a legal idiot as usual.> Despite your childish rudeness undoubtedely brought on by the fact that everything you argued in favor of for the last 5 months was just trounced by the appellate Court, I will actually answer your questions. <What, exactly, is the meaning of that precedent in terms of antitrust law?> My stab in the dark is that it totally eliminates the validity of any case the DOJ would make for tying products since the individual products were not tied, but a single product marketed as integrated. <How will it be held to apply to the continuing broader action?> I twill not be held to apply, but it does answer the important question as to whether MSFT was illegaly tying products or not. You see, it can't be an illegal action if the products weren't tied to begin with. <I'm sure in the mysterious context of the Mind of Reg(TM) it's a definitive ruling, but naive high school civics guy wonders.> I wonder how the openaly biased Judge Jackson and special master Lessig feel on the subject. How about Klein, Barksdale, the Fed AG. I am quite sure they are wondering right along with you. Wondering why in the world they listened to those lobbyist in the first place to pick a fight that wasn't right in the first place. Maybe they are now starting to wonder about the consequences. I told you from the very beginning, they had no case. With such as biased Judge, it HAD to be decided on appeal.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (20151)	6/24/1998 2:10:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Anne Bingaman's meaningless consent decree is now officially meaningless. What a surprise. What, exactly, is the meaning of that precedent in terms of antitrust law? How will it be held to apply to the continuing broader action? I actually believe that this decision will be good for the DOJ case because it will allow them to focus on the real issues surrounding MSFT's abuse of monopoly power and abandon the fruitless attempt at attacking the integration of the browser.