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.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: I Am John Galt who wrote (392)	7/1/1998 5:40:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13060

There's never a last word... 1. I downloaded them at work...not that difficult to conceive, is it? 2. Although you can pretty much choose what apps you want, most people buy their PC and it comes loaded with Office, etc...due to OEM agreements. These OEM agreements are offshoots of MSFT's initial OEM agreements for DOS. 3. There wasn't just TALK, they did it and the DOJ stopped them. I, for one, was outraged. I don't care if MSFT gives software away (it's effectively what they do...you pay for service and upgrades), I'll still buy what I want. If price is an issue, and MSFT is giving it away, then that IS good for the consumer, isn't it? How is that the use of monopoly power? Monopoly power assumes that what MSFT is doing is BAD for the consumer.... If MSFT uses that to drive away the competition (if that was to happen, it would have already), THEN they start charging oppressive prices...the market would open up again to discount manufacturers... As for the CEO - I don't know. I don't really believe too much in today's media. I'm very careful to read between the lines. I worked for a CEO who is under indictment by a Special Prosecutor (Henry Cisneros) and he claimed that the criminal was chosen and the crime fit to him....Odd...seems to me that 3 judges have to agree that a crime may have taken place to name a special prosecutor. If I was to believe Henry, lord knows what I'd be willing to believe from other CEOs. You know what I believe? A review of IBM's finances, and its markets over the period of time of the lawsuit. I don't see a correlation between the lawsuit and IBM becoming less profitable... If they were demoralized, it would've occurred LONG before they settled with the DOJ. I suspect IBM suddenly realized their market was changing, and as a result the lawsuit would become a drag on their performance...based on the market conditions at the time, that makes more sense than "we were demoralized". I think he'd have a better argument to say that the DOJ diverted their vision enough that they were unable to stay on top of a changing market. If that's the case, then why bring the lawsuit to begin with? A changing market suggests increased competition and a lack of monopoly power.... If I were the CEO, I doubt I would EVER claim such a thing, because I am a basically honest person. However, that is why I would never rise to CEO in an established firm and am trying to work for myself now.