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.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (21012)	10/22/1998 7:41:00 AM
From: Joe S Pack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Ike, I totally disagree with your view on MSFT. In no way their product is superior nor quality. It is their strength in marketing that makes money. Based on may background and knwoledge I can state that IE wouldn't have caught up unless they pushed it throgh bundling. It is interesting that Gates often uses the word "innovation" to outright copying or stealing. You can not do the same thing in Drug industry. Thanks to opnenss in software industry stealing and copying has become norm and allows people to make lot money on others idea. DOJ has a role. Free market is not qual to marketing mafia. Look at Phone company in US. Thanks to DOJ I am paying 55 cents (in 1998) to India than $2.25 (I used to pay in 1987). Same is true that unless they wnet after IBM we won't have PC's now. I am completely agree that Banking is a very great sector right now. Made more nearly 50% in threee weeks. 28 for CCI and 38 for MER are rediculus. LEH at 22 sold for nearly half their book value. You get these chances very rarley. Convey regards to your family. -Karun

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (21012)	10/22/1998 9:07:00 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Dear Mr. Latif: >>> Like when Clinton saga was going on I was very clear from day one this inquisitions and double standards just would not do <<< What kind of double standard are you talking about? How many people do you know that have sex in the office with underlings half their age? How many people do you know that have oral sex while discussing serious business with colleagues while on the phone? >>>Clinton is not someone that I will like to spend an evening with but I do care that I have no bussiness interfering in adults life,<<< That is quite noble of you not to want to spend an evening with such people. But, how about doing business with such people? People that are having oral sex while talking to you over the phone over serious business. Do you want to do business with such people? Would you want to go to a place of worship with such a person? Would you send your son to die if such a person asked that you send your son to war? We are not talking about a personal friend, or as some women like to think, their secret "boy Friend", but we are talking about a person occupying the most powerful office on earth. There is and there should be a different standard for a person temporarily occupying this office - The Presidency of the United States. We are not Iraq, Libya, or South Korea - where their leaders could do anything they want. We do not want to become like that. As for public opinion polls - though the methodology of selecting random samples may be scientific - but is the framing of the question scientifically put together? I fear not. In any case, we, in the United States, may be reasonably well educated by current world standards - but there is quite a ways to go yet before we become truly educated enough to deserve the kind of democracy that we have the privilege to enjoy. You, as an individual, can do anything you want in your "private life" and we wish you the best of luck and happiness. Sincerely, Mary Cluney

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (21012)	10/22/1998 10:25:00 AM
From: ILCUL8R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Dear Mr. Latif, I lurk and enjoy your many fine comments about the larger market. However, your personal comments about Bill Gates provoke me to post my personal comments about Microsoft. Below is some of what I recently sent to the DOJ: Recently I tried to order several computers from Gateway or Dell or Compaq, with the stipulation that they NOT contain MS Internet Explorer. None of these companies even bothered to respond. This is how tight MS's monopoly is and shows how my freedom of choice has been destroyed. The Internet has become a national resource too valuable to allow one monopolist to control. Microsoft has been allowed to have a monopoly in the operating system. Also, to date, it has been allowed to enforce the inclusion of its browser on all new computers, regardless of customer choice. It has been allowed, again, to shut out competition. As a computer professional since 1984 I have observed all too many instances of Microsoft's abuse of its operating system monopoly status. Smaller companies have been bullied into submission, or made to sell out, or had their code stolen, or they gave up and didn't even try to compete. Small companies cannot afford to do legal battle with Microsoft's deep pockets for legal services. The company with the most money wins the legal encounters -- or so it seems to most of us. Microsoft has been allowed to have a monopoly in the operating system. We realize it is difficult to draw the line between what is an operating system and what is an ancillary application software. This vagueness has given Microsoft a unique opportunity to print money as it absorbs other software concepts into its operating system. In past years Microsoft sometimes has shown little creativity or courage preferring, instead, to let other software companies take the lead. Then, as these other companies begin to develop viable markets for their products, Microsoft finds a way to incorporate their concepts into the next version of the operating system as an "improvement" and as a "response to customer desires," which puts the competitors out of business. This is not fair. Too many consumers and investors, looking from the outside in, think it is great to get good software which includes as "free" the utilities they used to have to buy separately. And we know many investors think Microsoft is a great company as owning its stock has made them a lot of money. However, I contend, too many people are short sighted -- they fail to understand the implications of their greed or complacency about this issue. As a computer professional, looking from the inside out, I have experienced first hand the problems created by Microsoft as it kills competition and subtly makes it "difficult" to install competing products. Please keep your best legal minds, technical people and computer experts working to tighten and improve your case against Microsoft and its monopolistic practices.