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: ed who wrote (10591)	9/8/1998 10:58:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

I'm simply trying to restate what you've said; how is it inaccurate? As for debate, one appropriate forum for that debate is in the courts, as is happening. I think perhaps you prefer to debate the wrong question. Do you have any opinion as to whether MSFT violated the laws _as written_ (rather than as you think they should be)? If they have, what remedy is appropriate? JMHO, and neither investment nor legal advice.

To: ed who wrote (10591)	9/8/1998 11:32:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Ok, ed. Who said that it is complicated then we should let MSFT alone ? What people said is it is such a complex case, it needs quite a lot of debate, and the professionals got to be very careful to get along with this case, the result will set up a sample or model for the future, and the impact can be very deep. Going back to where you came in here, we have What it tells us is is the law still appropriate in today's business world. Those laws were set up many years ago, while during this period, the business environment has changed quite a lot. We are using tires of 50 years ago to fit today's modern cars. (from www2.techstocks.com So, what, exactly are you arguing for? Every time I see the "obsolete and antiquated antitrust" argument, it always comes down to "let Microsoft be Microsoft." Which seems to be a fairly, uh, simplistic solution. For anybody who might be interested in the legal and economic issues here, as opposed to various cheesy high school debate tricks, I offer this reference: The trustbusters' new tools economist.com./editorial/freeforall/microsoft_case/sf1058.html One little on-topic quote from this article: Surprisingly perhaps, the controversies surrounding Microsoft plough little new intellectual ground. Although technophiles are prone to assert that advanced technology has changed everything, few new antritrust problems are posed by Microsoft's purported sins, which involve mostly predation against competitors in a supposed effort to monopolise parts of the software industry. If advanced technology has changed competition policy, it is for another reason entirely: that computers have greatly enhanced economists' ability to crunch numbers and model behaviour. The pages that follow describe these new techniques and the thinking that lies behind them. This is from a respected publication, or at least Bill was supposed to have respected it before they got on his case. They have an index to their Microsoft coverage at economist.com./editorial/freeforall/microsoft_case/focus_microsoft_tframeset.html; it includes an invited reply from Bill himself, which the editors found somewhat, uh, lacking. Cheers, Dan.