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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21131)	10/26/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I posted this on the How High group, but it's relevant here as well. Am I wrong, or did someone from Microsoft allegedly support Barksdale's contention about the June 1995 meeting in a deposition? Microsoft had better refute that June 1995 meeting: ipmag.com Relevant quote #1 : One of the most provocative charges -- which, if proven, would constitute an automatic violation of the federal antitrust laws, asserts that Microsoft executives met in June 1995 with executives of Netscape, the early leader in the browser market, and offered to divide up the market. and a few paragraphs later: Chief among the documents is a May 31, 1995, memo from Gates to Paul Maritz, Microsoft's vice president in charge of its platforms group. He told Maritz, "I think there is a very powerful deal of some kind we can do with Netscape." Gates suggested Microsoft offer a 24-month agreement to help Netscape with its server business if it agreed to stay out of the browser business in Microsoft's Windows operating arena. "I would really like to see something like this happen!!" Gates wrote. I'm a little suspicious because they don't directly quote Gates' suggestion in the email. But, in the words of an old Microsoft shill on the OS/2 newsgroups, This Does Not Bode Well.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21131)	10/26/1998 3:16:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Respond to of 24154

During a closed conference with the judge and the other lawyers late last week, Warden said of Barksdale, "Sometimes he doesn't seem to understand" the questions, "but that's in good faith," according to a transcript made public. Judge Jackson said, "Sometimes I don't understand them either." To which, Warden responded: "Sometimes I may not understand them myself." I like this. :-) Thanks for the article.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21131)	10/27/1998 5:29:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

From your very good NYT article: Barksdale replied that in the long run he thought consumers would benefit if Microsoft had not made the browser free because the move had eliminated the incentives for other companies to enter the browser market with innovative products. This brings to mind F. Bastiat's "economic fable, 'The Petition of the Candlemakers against the Competition of the Sun', in which it is demanded that [W]indows should be prohibited because of the benefit which the prosperity of the candlemakers would confer on everyone else . . .." (quote from 3 The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek 349 (1991))