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 (11610)	10/21/1998 7:44:00 PM
From: Alan Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I believe MSFT will be able to show each of it's competitors engaged in precisely the behavior for which they are being "demonized". That's how the software industry works and it's how it MUST work. To be significantly useful to customers your wares must inter-operate with your competitors, and that means lots of "coopetition", sharing, cross licensing, and back-stabbing. This natural requirement makes it virtually impossible for any software company to guard a market advantage without moving forward. Whoever can move the fastest will win. That's exactly what's happening now and it's great for consumers. The DOJ doesn't get this. They fall back on "because others do it doesn't excuse MSFT's behavior". The higher courts, though, care that the precedents make sense as a whole, and the higher this goes the more discussion there will be of the silly paradoxes introduced by the DOJs pinko interpretation of the laws. There's going to be a lot less enthusiasm for this action as it becomes clear how hindered, litigious, and contorted the environment will be for ALL software companies under a pro-DOJ decision. What happened here is Barksdale bet the farm that MSFT couldn't keep up with "Internet time". He was wrong. The rest is whining. How 'bout those earnings? Wow.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (11610)	10/21/1998 11:16:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Very substantial demonstration of legal knowledge there, John. You and your particular interpretation of her Aynness are the very embodiment of reason, and anybody who disagrees is arguing from "feelings and emotions", no doubt. DOJ case is unreasonable in all aspects? As the totally objective and impartial observer, Microsoft defense attorney Warden "demonstarted"? We'll see. This isn't the consent decree case anymore, and it isn't just Netscape that's at issue here. As for IBD editorials, I couldn't say, have they been given legal standing by some new law I'm unaware of? I prefer the editorial in Bill's former favorite rag, The Economist Yet the case against Microsoft remains compelling. The government will describe in detail a pattern of “predatory and exclusionary” practices illegally carried out over many years, often aimed at intimidating partners as much as competitors. At the very least, Microsoft's belief that other firms do the things it is accused of demonstrates a refusal to concede that, under antitrust law, monopolists should be whiter than white. As you could see if you chose to review their coverage at economist.com , Bill himself tried to pull the old "just the same as the consent decree case" line on them, they weren't impressed. But what the heck, may as well give it another shot, eh John? If it's the best argument you have, why not?