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

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21124)	10/25/1998 2:27:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

Hi, Gerry, long time no see. One thing I think everyone should keep in mind about this court case-- we're only seeing half of it. Microsoft "won" last week because they were the only one asking questions-- Barksdale's direct testimony didn't really filter through the newsmedia. I doubt that most of the reporters even read his testimony. So I have no idea what statements by Barksdale weren't refuted. I guess that Microsoft will "win" the next several weeks for the same reason-- only the cross examination will make it to the papers. Then, when Microsoft presents (submits) its case, the DOJ will "win" those weeks because their cross will make it to the papers.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21124)	10/25/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Hi Jerry, can you explain why Judge Jackson is trying to rush the proceeding so much? I certainly don't want the trial to last for a decade, but at the same time I'd like all the evidence/witnesses to be put out there. For a trial of this magnitude, I'm confused as to why each side is limited to 12 formal witnesses, and like how the judge is going to limit a witnesses time on the stand (Jackson ordered that Barksdale's cross-ex must end on Monday). I think it's an interesting idea that direct-ex is being done by written testimony, but also not quite sure about that call, either.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21124)	10/25/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Hi Gerald, as Bearded One said, long time no post. The same point you make about selling versus giving away the browser seems to apply to the now infamous Jim Clark memo that Barksdale got slammed with. The situation in Dec. 94 was significantly different than in June '95. The other thing about that meeting is Microsoft has said that Netscape's version is "fantastical" and an invention of Andreeson and all kinds of other wild smears, but they haven't offered any coherent version of their own, unless I missed something. Bill said something about telling Netscape about "cool new features in Windows95", before he went conveniently senile on the whole matter. He can't remember a thing about it anymore! But he wasn't much interested in the first place, so I guess that's consistent. I Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, the Netscape version of the meeting is consistent with many other accounts of Microsoft meetings with other companies. Also consistent with "standard Microsoft business practice", as glorified by many a Microphile, in any context but this one. Our old friend Thomas Reardon was briefly on the witness list, he was at the meeting they say, but that only lasted a day. Some VP pulled rank on him or something. Cheers, Dan.