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: Keith Hankin who wrote (20213)	6/24/1998 10:28:00 PM
From: Cory Gault	Respond to of 24154

"actually good for the DOJ case" hey Ken...Yeah right, nice effort though....MSFT +4 3/16.... As for short term rallies Dan...you hold this stock long term..I can't believe someone who pronounces himself to be as intelligent as you hasn't figured that out by now.... CG

To: Keith Hankin who wrote (20213)	6/24/1998 11:18:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Anne Bingaman's meaningless consent decree is now officially meaningless. I'm actually starting to come to the view that maybe the Consent Decree is not meaningless, that it, not general antitrust law, may well turn out in the opinion of the DC Circuit panel the gets this case to provide the tighter restrictions on Microsoft's ability to tie products together. If so, DOJ is in real trouble. Of course, neither Microsoft nor DOJ is limited by the terms of the Consent Decree in arguing about how antitrust law should apply to tie-ins. It seems like the court here was bending over backwards to provide an interpretation of the Decree which did not render either the prohibition on conditional licensing or the "integrated product" proviso meaningless. That makes sense, because you need to interpret a contract that gives meaning to all its provisions, that does not "write out" any of them by rendering the promises contained therein illusory. This, to me, was always the problem with Microsoft's position -- their interpretation would have make the tying prohibition meaningless. Well, the court agree, and now they have to get used to following a new set of rules about how they can design and market those of their products that are covered by the Decree. By the same token, DOJ has to make room for Microsoft's right to develop and market "integrated products." DOJ's interpretation may make sense under antitrust law, but here DOJ is constrained by the fact that the Decree is distinct from, and, arguably, more permissive than, straight antitrust law. But, if you are dealing with straight antitrust law, no decree, then neither side is constrained. Microsoft could argue that tying of all kinds should be legal (as Bork would argue, leaving aside his "predatory conduct" theory du joir). DOJ would be free to argue that tying law makes tying/integrating IE and Windows together illegal, regardless of what the Consent Decree allows.