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 (11806)	10/26/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: johnd	Respond to of 74651

MSFT is the cheapest stock at 50 or PE among CSCO, DELL, AOL YHOO and MSFT (i.e. strong high fliers), but I am now realizing that MSFT won't make the major upward move (from instutional buying) until a clouds clear on the DOJ suit. Who knows when that is. Till then Mr. market will keep giving us MSFT at 40 FY99 PE. (i.e. FY99 EPS of 2.65 * 40 is about 106) Anyone know when the SUN - MSFT java lawsuit trail result be out? johnd

To: XiaoYao who wrote (11806)	10/26/1998 7:31:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft Charges U.S. Withheld Documents In Antitrust Case By Mark Boslet 10/26/98 Dow Jones News Service (Copyright (c) 1998, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Raising the stakes in its antitrust trial, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) accused the government of withholding from it two documents related to a crucial June 21, 1995, meeting with Netscape Communications Corp. (NSCP). The meeting is at the heart of the Federal District Court case the Justice Department and 20 states filed against the company claiming it sought to undermine competitors to protect its Windows monopoly. Microsoft suggests the documents show the antitrust case to be little more than the Justice Department duped into standing up for rivals that couldn't make it in the marketplace. The company argues that the documents show Netscape had special motives for taking meeting notes on June 21: to help the Justice Department build a record of a case. Yet the documents also give new fuel to Netscape's claim that Microsoft tried to keep the smaller Internet software company out of the Windows 95 browser market. That could represent an illegal market division under antitrust law. The two documents are dated June 22 and June 23, the two days following the June 21 meeting between Netscape and Microsoft. One is a civil request for investigative documents from the Justice Department dated June 22. The second is a next-day reply from then Netscape lawyer Gary Reback, who sent the Justice Department a copy of the meeting notes taken by Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen. With the trial entering its second week, both sides took pains to spin the case their way. Microsoft has successfully raised serious doubts about the case and shown that it has been designed to help a handful of competitors, said Mark Murray, a spokesman. The Justice Department has since the early 1990s been probing Microsoft's business practices and Netscape simply responded to investigative requests, said a Netscape spokeswoman. Microsoft in a court filing said over the weekend it received the two documents by fax from the Justice Department. It complained about what it said was their tardy delivery in a court filing. Microsoft lead attorney John Warden also suggested that they may show Netscape was in contact with the department prior to the meeting. On the other hand, Reback's reply, written only two days after the June 21 meeting, gives added support to Netscape's claim of a market-division proposal. Netscape needed technical information from Microsoft to complete a Windows 95 version of its browser, information that other software developers had received, Chief Executive James Barksdale said during in-court testimony. As of June 21, Microsoft indicated it would not provide this information unless Netscape agreed to an equity investment from Microsoft, gave Microsoft a seat on its board and allowed Microsoft to "otherwise control Netscape's ability to compete against Microsoft," Reback wrote. The general theme of the negotiations between the companies is that Microsoft owns the "platform" and that if Netscape is going to compete in any way, "Microsoft will competitively harm Netscape," Reback said.

To: XiaoYao who wrote (11806)	10/26/1998 7:33:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft, Intuit -2: Netscape Says Tech Wasn't Key Factor 10/26/98 Dow Jones News Service (Copyright (c) 1998, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.) WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Netscape Communications Corp. (NSCP) lost a 1997 business deal with Intuit Inc. (INTU) because of technological inadequacies with its World Wide Web browser, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) attorney John Warden suggested. In testimony Monday during the Microsoft antitrust case, Warden presented several internal Netscape documents and e-mail messages to support his argument. One document, listing "talking points" for an internal Netscape meeting, contained phrases such as "embedded browser: We don't have one" and "not credible for bet-the-company decision." Warden suggested that Netscape's inability to deliver a browser made up of separate component technologies hampered its success with Intuit. Netscape Chief Executive James Barksdale testified that the company's lack of a component technology wasn't the key factor in losing the deal. Further, he said Netscape was willing to provide component pieces of its Navigator browser. The more important factor for Intuit was the broader product distribution that Microsoft could provide and its ability to include pieces of its popular Quicken financial management software in its Windows operating system. "Despite the progress we were making, I began to suspect that Microsoft was exerting extreme pressure on Intuit," Barksdale said in written testimony submitted to District Court. In reiterating a theme that Barksdale has used in his four days of testimony, he said, "When we get to compete head-to-head, we do pretty good."

To: XiaoYao who wrote (11806)	10/26/1998 7:34:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Respond to of 74651

PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY Microsoft's Cordless Phone Has Added Features--and Some Hang-Ups LAWRENCE J. MAGID 10/26/98 Los Angeles Times Home Edition Page C-6 Copyright 1998 / The Times Mirror Company Software companies, TV news networks, Internet service providers and publishing houses aren't the only ones that need to worry about competition from Microsoft. Sony, AT&T, Panasonic, Uniden and other cordless phone makers also will soon find themselves competing with Bill Gates. Later this week, Microsoft plans to roll out the Microsoft Cordless Phone, a $199 device that turns a PC into an intelligent answering machine and phone dialer. The product consists of a 900-megahertz cordless phone, a recharging cradle, a separate transmitter unit that's connected to the phone line and the PC and Microsoft Call Manager software. The recharging cradle can be near any electrical outlet in the house and doesn't need to be plugged into either a phone line or the PC. The phone comes with voicemail software that includes separate mailboxes for family members. If you subscribe to caller ID, you can have the software play a customized greeting depending on who is calling. Or it can selectively block or put through a call depending on who it's from. There is nothing unusual about being able to use a PC as a digital answering machine. Many home PCs come with software that allows you to use a modem to answer your phone and take messages in multiple mailboxes. Personally, I've never had much use for them--and based on interviews with several PC makers, neither do most other PC users. Most people would rather rely on their good, old answering machine or a modestly priced digital voicemail system rather than turning their $1,000 to $2,500 PC into a $69 answering machine. Microsoft hopes that the extra features in this hardware/software combination will overcome consumer resistance to PC-based phone systems. The device does have some significant advantages over a modem-based PC answering system. Although the PC and the Call Manager software have to be running for the voicemail feature to work, you don't have to be sitting at your PC to retrieve your messages. You can press the message button on the phone and listen to messages through the phone itself or via an attached speaker. You can also retrieve messages from a remote touch-tone phone. In addition to leaving a message, a caller can also send you a numeric page. You create the page option as one of your mailboxes, and when a caller enters a numeric page, your PC calls your pager and passes on the message. The software can also be configured to automatically call your cellular phone or other remote phone to play your messages. However unlike some systems and services, it can't forward calls or let you monitor incoming messages from your cellular phone. All incoming and outgoing calls are logged in a call history file that tells you the name and phone number (if known) of the caller or recipient along with the call time and duration. It only knows callers' names and phone numbers if you subscribe to caller ID and if they're not blocked. The phone uses the same Microsoft address book that is used by the Outlook Express program that is bundled with Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 4.0. And if you click on a listing, it will place the call for you. My favorite feature is its ability to place calls with voice commands. In addition to the standard phone book, there is a speed-dial section that allows you to enter up to 40 names and phone numbers you can call simply by speaking the name. The software has a voice-recognition feature, which allows it to look up a phone number from anyone in your speed-dial list. Unfortunately, you have to enter each name and number in a separate part of the program. For some reason, the speed-calling feature is not integrated into the phone book. Although speech recognition is far from an exact science, I was very impressed at its accuracy. To place a call, you press the voice command button on the side of the phone, say "call Larry" and the phone verbally confirms who it is calling and places the call for you. The phone does have some limitations. For one thing, it's only a one-line phone. It seems to me that most people with a Pentium PC (required) and $200 to spend on a cordless phone probably have more than one phone line in their home. Another issue is that it takes up a serial port, which could interfere with your Internet access if you have an external modem and only one serial port. Another limitation is that you can't take advantage of the phone's calling features from other extensions in the house and you can have only one Microsoft phone per PC. The phone also requires that the PC be left on to retrieve messages (although you can place and receive calls if the PC is off). I don't mind leaving the PC on all day or even overnight, but I'm not sure I'd want to leave it running if I were away on a three-week vacation. And given the instability of Windows and PCs in general, I'd worry that a software or operating-system glitch, power outage or other catastrophe would disable the answering system until I got back. My final issue with the product has to do with the fact that it's cordless. The digital answering machine that my family uses never leaves its perch in our kitchen but our cordless phone wanders all over the house and sometimes hides under beds, inside the sofa or on the bathroom floor. To retrieve messages with the Microsoft Cordless Phone, you either have to locate the phone itself or fiddle with the PC. As cool as this phone is, I think I'll stick to my old answering machine and my old $49 two-line cordless phone. But kudos to Microsoft for coming up with some pretty forward-thinking technology. Given the company's deep pockets and tenacity, I fully expect them to follow up with improved versions. In the meantime, the Justice Department can stay focused on Microsoft's software and Internet businesses. It will be a while before we have to worry about them putting any phone makers or answering-machine companies out of business.