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: XiaoYao who wrote (11803)	10/26/1998 2:55:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 74651

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: XiaoYao who wrote (11803)	10/26/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

To XiaoYao and all MSFT Shareholders: There is harm. The harm is being done to the MSFT shareholders. This whole suit is not the concoction of the US government but that of a sour grapes competitor who couldn't stand not having 90% of the browser market. To this end Warden took great pains today to show the conniving treachery employed by NSCP to bring this action about. Taken from report of TechInvestor: Microsoft lead attorney John Warden grilled Netscape president Jim Barksdale about documents subpoenaed from the government, saying they show Netscape set up the meeting and then deliberately characterized it in such a way as to bolster an antitrust case against the Redmond, Wash., software giant. The meeting itself occurred on June 21, 1995. One day later, Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Netscape, requesting information about its dealings with Microsoft. The following day, Gary Reback, a lawyer working for Netscape, sent a letter to John Jacobs at the U.S. Justice Department. Microsoft had subpoenaed both documents, which were only turned over to the company this Saturday. Warden on Monday tried to show that Netscape vice president Marc Andreessen talked to both in-house counsel as well as Reback about the meeting in hopes of spurring government to action. Barksdale said Netscape had not contacted the Justice Department prior to the June 21 meeting. Warden asked if Netscape counsel had requested that Justice issue the CID the day after the meeting. Barksdale answered: "That was not my understanding." Warden then suggested Barksdale discuss the question with Netscape counsel Roberta Katz at the next recess to see "if what I say is not the truth." Warden's contention is that Netscape started responding to the CID even before the government issued it. Microsoft has long maintained that Mountain View, Calif.-based Netscape is using the government's antitrust action to protect it from competition. Microsoft also filed for sanctions against the government for not turning over the documents earlier. In its motion, Microsoft characterized the June 21 meeting as "a setup." John Dowd