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: Bearded One who wrote (21182)	11/3/1998 4:16:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Why would it be illegal for microsoft and apple to discuss ways of enhancing their market position against sun? Are you alleging that discussions about ways to undermine a common competitor are an attempt to create a cartel? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21182)	11/3/1998 4:48:00 AM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Well, explicit or not, I believe most business deals are made by a company seeking to enhance its market position with respect to a competitor. Whether or not Bill Gates said, "undermine Sun," I think it's fairly obvious that Microsoft intended to gain the upper hand in Java, so I don't understand the DOJ's contention of this being a "smoking gun." By the same token, it's obvious that Sun and Friends have been doing everything possible to "undermine Microsoft," so what's the big deal? In this light, nothing Microsoft did to Netscape with Apple is illegal, and similar deals are being struck throughout the industry with each passing day. The DOJ's problem with the Msft/Aapl deal, however, is that they think Microsoft is a monopoly and leveraging its monopoly position to harm competitors.... I disagreed with this notion vis-a-vis Microsoft Office, which I do not believe is a monopoly product. The real question here is not the deals themselves, but the fact that it's Microsoft doing the deals. Not only must the DOJ prove that "Microsoft have a monopoly," but I think they'll should have to do so for specific products, as well as determine that X-monopoly was acquired illegally. Those questions will determine the structure of Microsoft's business dealings going forward. Clearly, the deals themselves are not anti-competitive; otherwise, everyone in the industry would be facing violations of some sort. Are things like the ABM Alliance ("Anyone But Microsoft") fair/legal? I believe so. But I also believe that Microsoft's dealings with Apple, AOL, and others are fair/legal as well.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21182)	11/3/1998 10:07:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

The government must show that Microsoft had the power to coerce Apple to hurt Netscape and Sun, and did use that power. This sounds a lot like an "essential facilities" kind of argument. Microsoft owns the one bridge across the river, and if the competing railroads want to use it they have to give Microsoft what it wants. But, how, in Microsoft's case, does this harm consumers? That's one thing that has not really come through in the government's case, at least not yet.