SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Keith Hankin who wrote (20796)9/1/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes  Respond to of 24154
 
>>> Unsealed e-mails reveal Gates nixed Novell-Microsoft Java collaboration

This is perfectly congruent with my theory of meeting with MSFT on any issue. Or any other big tech industry player.

They are there to read your mind, take your blood pressure, apply the lie detector, go through your pockets, and weigh your wallet. Little good can come of it, unless you know they are desperately interested in something you have.

At that point your move is to sell out completely, no half measures. Because if they buy 10% they will end up owning everything of value you have anyway. Just keep your mouth shut or they may well get what they need in the meetings, for free.

Unless you are looking to have them recruit your key people, you are better off talking through faxes, or maybe lawyers.

All of this is of course, Just My Humble Opinion.

Cheers,
Chaz



To: Keith Hankin who wrote (20796)9/2/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24154
 
U.S. Faults Depositions of Microsoft's Executives nytimes.com

Today's update from the Gray Lady. The headline's a bit stale, but other actions are reported on. Quotes for amusement only, read the story.

"Executives who are stated to be the author of documents claim not to remember writing them," government lawyers wrote. "Executives who are the stated recipients of documents claim not to remember receiving them. And both authors and recipients claim not to know what the documents mean."

You know, I have that problem too. I'm still confused what the correct version of Communism is, in the giving away software sense. I sort of prefer the open source model, via Stallman, Linux, Netscape, but I'm sure Bill has a good explanation of why that version is incorrect. Windows is Open, after all. Another interesting bit of news from the neologistics department:

Although browser is a term used throughout Microsoft's documents and licenses, the industry literature, and even in the dictionary Microsoft publishes for software professionals," the brief says, "in the interest of Microsoft's litigation arguments it becomes a nonword. Witnesses claim they don't know what a browser is. What used to be browsers are now simply 'bits of browsing technologies."'

Oh dear. Old fogy that I am, I get annoyed when people call code "technology" too. Anyway, the neologistics department redefines, and the neologistics department takes away. This isn't exactly news, either, I think there's an old quote from some junior executive about there being no browser, "just Windows".

To all of this evidence, Murray said: "In every case, the government is misrepresenting Microsoft's business relationships with other companies. We meet with hundreds of companies to make them aware of our technology plans and to promote the tools in our operating system and to insure that our products and their products work well together. Microsoft has never tried to divide any market, period."

Who you gonna believe, Bill "Don't be paranoid" Gates, or Andy "Only the paranoid survive" Grove? What was Bill's version of the Netscape meeting, they just wanted to tell Netscape about cool features in Win95 they could use? I'd agree about Microsoft never trying to divide markets, of course. Remember, their "fair share" is 100%, not much left after that.

Cheers, Dan.