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 : Zapata (ZAP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RJC2006 who wrote (561)	7/27/1998 7:41:00 PM
From: Philip J. Davis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1206

Bob, >>Well Phillip it is easy to see how you would view the truth as a personal attack but if the DOJ is full of Marxists as you say then could you please tell me why in the hell Microsoft saw fit to donate a few million dollars to the Clinton campaign?<< I don't know whether this is true or not, but let's just assume it is. Let me see if I understand you correctly: Because MSFT allegedly donated to the Clinton campaign, there are no Marxists in the DOJ? That's interesting logic. Bill Gates isn't stupid. He gave for the same reason most brokerage houses donate to BOTH parties. Money talks. It grants you access to elected officials that you wouldn't ordinarily have. Like it or not, this is the reality of our electoral system. I wouldn't be surprised if MSFT donated to the Dole campaign as well. >>Part of the reason that you don't see more OS's out there is because MSFT participated in predatory practices by attempting to sanction computer makers who wanted to use other OS's in their products.<< And the other part?.... As I recall, the deal MSFT made to OEM's was a per-processor OS deal: that is, no matter whether the OEM sold a computer with or without Windows, they'd be charged as if they were. In exchange, they'd be granted favorable pricing. If not, they'd be charged the full retail price for Windows. If anyone forced the OEM's to accept this type of deal, it was the consumer, not the government. What's wrong with this? Couldn't another OS company make the same deal? As far as I am aware, there is only one OS that competes with Windows: IBM's OS/2 Warp. Where is Sun's OS? Apple? Netscape? Ditto. >>When you start controlling production of peripheral products associated to those products you say you are in the business of marketing you are running along the rim of monopolization and that is neither competition or a free market.<< Blah, blah, blah..... Whether or not MSFT has a "monopoly" in OS's is arguable, and in any case, if MSFT has this "monopoly", it is for one reason: consumer dictate - not government dictate. Philip