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 (21185)	11/3/1998 10:50:00 AM
From: nnillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

AP dateline today: Gates Defends Apple Deal dailynews.yahoo.com Excerpt: Boies asked Gates whether he ever talked to Apple officials about the ''the need to undermine'' Sun Microsystems, the makers of Java, a programming language that can be used to design software programs across a variety of types of computers, not just those with Microsoft Windows installed. Gates said he couldn't remember. Boies tried to refresh his memory with a three-line e-mail he sent on Aug. 8, 1997, to one of his senior executives that asks: ''Do we have a clear plan on what we want Apple to do to undermine Sun?'' Gates said he didn't remember sending the note.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21185)	11/3/1998 11:45:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Gerald, I'm not a lawyer or an economist. But it seems to me that, in general, the question "did action X harm consumers" is an impossible question to answer precisely. Rather, I think the law should focus on the process and make presumptions one way or another about behaviors. My analogy would be drunk driving--- someone gets pulled over while drunk. Well, did his driving drunk actually harm people? Can anyone prove that he would have hit someone with his car had he not been pulled over? No, but you pull the guy over anyway. Also, could you help me understand the difference between a monopoly product and an essential facility? They sound awfully similar.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21185)	11/3/1998 5:13:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

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. Isn't it enough to show elimination of competition? Do they have to show specific substantive harm to consumers? I don't believe that this was required in other successful anti-trust suits.