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: Philip J. Davis who wrote (563)	7/27/1998 8:56:00 PM
From: D & G	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1206

Phillip, I am sorry if you took my statement as a personal attack on you. I guess I didn't like the fact that you called my idea about MSFT controlling the internet as "ridiculus". You are entitled to your opinion as that is what a democratic society is all about. I do agree with your comment about Mr. Hatch, but the senators from Washington are just as guilty as to their political motivations. All I can says is the more I read about companies like RNWK, SUNW, Oracle, and Netscape being squeezed out of market share because MSFT decide to offer these services for free or at a reduced price, smells of monopolistic control which will, in the long run, hurt technological advancements and the consumer. I sure wouldn't want to be a upstart company treading in the water around such a shark. DJF

To: Philip J. Davis who wrote (563)	7/27/1998 11:46:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1206

<<I don't know whether this is true or not, but let's just assume it is.>> No, let's not just say it is...it is...it's public knowledge as are all campaign contributions. <<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.>>> Phil, do some research...there is no alleged contribution...it is public record. I saw the records myself. Now according to your logic Bill Gates contributed to Marxists so he too must be a Marxist. That's far from the free market capitalist you paint him as. <<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.>> I wouldn't either. However, ask yourself of the two parties which do you think tabacco companies give the most to. I don't think you'll be too surprised that they give to the Democrats and the Republicans but is it a surprise that they give more to the GOP AND Jesse Helms is from North Carolina. Coincidence? I don't think so considering we all know what party is out to get tabacco companies. So now either Mr. Gates was shopping for favors or he is a Marxist (according to your logic). What is happening to him is just desserts for betting on the wrong pony. <<<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.>>> No, as I recall MSFT said they would sanction companies by not selling them the operating system at all should they elect to include products of competitors. A typical predatory practice. <<What's wrong with this? Couldn't another OS company make the same deal?>>> Sure they could. And they would have gotten spanked the same way Microsoft did. 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. And your point is.... <<<Blah, blah, blah.....>>> What? A show of intellect. Don't squabble about personal attacks when someone disputes your pet theory and then turn around and display an equal show of disrespect. <<<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.>>> Have I ever stated that MSFT had a monopoly in operating systems. Well, have I? Competition is defined in the market place as providing the better product not inhibiting another competitor's chances by exercising a dominant product in the ways I have discussed. If a company decides to buy your product and then their customer base relies on that product and then you tell them that they can't have that product unless they sell it the way you dictate is a predatory practice if I ever heard of one. If their OS is so all-fired great then they shouldn't need to do that. Good day