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: John F. Dowd who wrote (10038)	8/8/1998 3:59:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Respond to of 74651

Contracts in a Monopoly Market A. RE: "Speaking of contracts guys like Rubel don't understand those either. In their minds it is the latest whining complaint that should rule the day and not the contract they signed with both eyes open." With respect, if you are speaking of the implied social contract giving Microsoft exclusive rights to all it can touch, please remember that very few people have signed off on that yet. That's what the anti-Trust crisis is all about. Its all over the news. But, if you mean to imply that contracts entered into with firms having Monopoly powers in the market place are as freely entered into as contracts between firms in a free market, I do wonder where you are coming from? The details of day to day activity are important, but it is also important to look at the big picture. Its all over the news. B. RE: "They have themselves always walked the line." If this means that Gate's Microsoft has been above board and has not abused market position, contracts, and the patent properties of its competitors upon strategic occasions, then you may have not been reading the news. This also is a big picture item. C. RE: "I believe that this whole anti-MSFT thing is being orchestrated by IBM ...looking for some way to regain the lost territory. " Its not so much an "anti-Microsoft" thing with regulators as an anti-Trust thing. Clearly, this IBM conspiracy approach would be a fatally ineffective court room defense for Microsoft in light of the presentation of 1) any substantial anti-Trust violation evidence or 2) evidence that Microsoft does in fact benefit unfairly from its size in its Market Place. However, this is not to say that Microsoft has done anything criminal or that it has gained its current prominence primarily or in part by the use of sharp or shady practices. An all too common dodge among some Microsoft supporters is to say that Microsoft came upon its Monopoly fairly and that fairly derived monopolies are beyond reproach. A Monopoly is still a Monopoly in the eyes of the Law and Public Policy. Anti-Trust issues come into play naturally for any firm as successful as Microsoft in its Market Place. Any enlightened investor could be expected to know this. So, Here's the Bottom Line: The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. We did not struggle to set up a fair system just to let it run itself into the ground. This is an imperfect world with imperfect people running around in it. Its quite normal and natural that now and then the system may need to be tweaked. Right now, there are honest people out there with honest questions relating to Microsoft, the Market Place, and Public Policy. Cheer up! No mater what, Microsoft has great prospects. Hal