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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (9821)	7/30/1998 11:28:00 PM
From: Nasdaq100	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

RE: 1) Microsoft does not have a monopoly on Operating Systems... There is a large market for operating systems. It is simply a matter of what the people want and know. Microsoft is dominating this market in sales, but not monopolizing because there are other operating systems out there people could use, but either don't want to try it or are not advanced enough to use it. There are operating systems such as: MacOS, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, Unix (64-bit version coming soon too). It is up to the consumer, not Microsoft, to use what OS suits them best.

To: Bearded One who wrote (9821)	7/31/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Those professors probably did not know anything about the real world, and you keep dumping garbage on this thread. In the real world, MSFT's OS is not short of competitions. You have IBM OS, Unix on PC, APPLE...etc. It is the consumers' decision , which OS they will like to buy, not the government. If you want to say MSFT has a monopoly, it is a natural one, which means it is the consumers' fault which makes Microsoft's OS a monopoly, because the product is too good. If Consumers have other choice besides Microsoft's OS, then Microsoft did not have a monopoly. If you like the product, you pay for it, otherwise, you have other choice, will you call this a monopoly ? Do you think Benze Mecede is a monopoly thinking about the fact that it won't drop the price to sell its cars cheap ? I do not think so. The Microsoft's case is quite different than the standard oil or AT&T ' case, For the Standard oil 's case, if you do not have the pipe lines, the competitors similar products did not have any chances to be exposed in certain areas of the market, it is an monopoly for Standard Oil. But , today, with software can be easily downloaded from the Internet, there is no way for Micrisoft to block its competitors to be exposed to any markets. For AT&T's case, the fact is if the consumers do not like the service from AT&T, the consumers do not have other choices, so, it is a pure monopoly. The fact for MSFT's OS is, if you do not like the products of Microsoft, you have other choices, so you call this an monopoly. Just tell me why you did not install UNIX or IBM's or Appl's OS on your computer , but Window OS from Microsoft ? Did Microsoft force you to do so or because you like the product ???? I think you can come out the answer if Microsoft has the monopoly on its products. It is just that simple and clear. Everyone on this thread can ask himself the same question, why do you prefer Window than other OS ? Anyone force you to go Window instead of other OS ? If not, then the monopoly did not exist at all !!!!! Not only MSFT should suit the 20 states, but its share holders for huge legal fees !!!!

To: Bearded One who wrote (9821)	7/31/1998 2:58:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 74651

Perhaps you can say why Bork is wrong. I'm not qualified (as a lay person) to say that Bork is wrong. I am qualified to say that his position is suspect because he is being paid to spin Netscape's position. He is absolutely not a disinterested party.

To: Bearded One who wrote (9821)	7/31/1998 9:10:00 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Beard - I have a lot of respect for Bork as a legal scholar but given his obvious lack of understanding of the context of this case, I believe he is being guided down the posey path. I think it is a shame to see a great legal mind being abused in this way, and I hope Bork wakes up. Bork's factual errors are so obvious that one questions if his legal positions are equally flawed. Let's look at a few examples. The Browser War Netscape produced the first browser, the Netscape Navigator This is factually incorrect. Mosaic, developed at the U of I (and partly government funded) is widely accepted as the first browser. Netscape 'borrowed' (without permission) the name and much of the technology from Mosaic (back when Netscape was called Mosaic Communications Corp) despite the fact that U of I had given Spyglass the exclusive right to relicense Mosaic. This illegally deprived the U of I from license revenue from its intellectual properties and trademark. Microsoft legally licensed the original U of I mosaic code from spyglass as the basis for IE. So it is really Microsoft who is using the original code base, and Netscape which ripped off the ideas. Microsoft's licenses for Windows 98 prohibit computer manufacturers from modifying the screen first seen when users turn on their personal computer Also not true. I have examined the so-called 'windows experience' language in detail, and it only covers the screen which is seen the first time the computer is turned on EVER, not every time it is turned on. The user has other restrictions at first turn on also, like agreeing to the license terms. Microsoft's argument, that they should be able to provide a consistent appearance AT LEAST 1 TIME, seems reasonable, and helps keep hardware vendors from creating startup screens which might not even work and which would create a potential service nightmare for Microsoft - imagine doing telephone debugging when you have no idea what the user's screen contents might be, for example. After the very first boot-up, manufacturers and users are free to do whatever they want with the desktop. Compaq has shipped Netscape Navigator with some products since navigator was launched - it just takes slightly more thought (like about a minute's worth) to figure out how to add non-microsoft content in a way which does not violate the licensing terms. These are just the first two gross errors in fact that I came up with in a quick scan of the document. Bork is apparently repeating the misconceptions about both technical content and license terms that have been prepared by his employers (Sun, Netscape et. al.). I assume Bork is honest but misguided in this opinion. but he needs to do much more study on the background of the industry and the particulars of the issues he is discussing if he is to maintain his integrity.

To: Bearded One who wrote (9821)	7/31/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Mr. Bearded One, Did you read the appeals court decision that went against the DOJ and in favor of Microsoft? The appeals court said that it is illegal to have a monopoly when it does not provide an increase value to the consumer and there is an abuse of monetary value. Microsoft providing an internet browser in the operating system and at no real increase in monetary cost to the consumer is not an illegal monopoly. There must be an abuse of power and dominates in the market place for an illegal monopoly . That is why the DOJ has changed their case. The DOJ is now trying to go after the marketing tactics. Thank goodness you are not a lawyer because you do not have a clue. There many monopolies and obagopolies in existence today. Thank you, JK