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 (21336)	11/10/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

How will Microsoft tarnish Dr. McGready and his arguments? You go first. No need to speculate there, it was in today's NYT Microsoft asserts that the Justice Department is presenting a distorted picture of the Intel-Microsoft relationship and that McGeady is a disgruntled Intel executive whose pet software projects were tabled for good business reasons. "We did not threaten to withhold support for Intel's new microprocessors, and we did not do it," said Carl Stork, general manager of the Windows division. "Intel and Microsoft are pretty honest with each other, and when we think Intel is doing something stupid we say so," Stork said. "But the defining characteristic of the Microsoft-Intel relationship is close cooperation to expand the personal computer business for our mutual benefit and to benefit consumers." (from nytimes.com , cited earlier) It was all to benefit consumers and protect them from McGready's stupid ideas and low-quality Intel software. What if Microsoft does something stupid? That could never happen, they're the smartest people in the history of the known universe. Who's going to protect consumers from low-quality Microsoft software? Well, that's a definitional problem, and there's Bill's other legal project, UCC article 2B, to protect Microsoft from any liability on that front. All for the good of consumers, of course. As to Microsoft winning, improbable at the trial level, the Supreme Court is what matters. Have they been enrolled in the Chicago School? Are they ready to throw out antitrust law altogether? Are there 5 closet Objectivists among the 9? Only time will tell. Cheers, Dan.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21336)	11/10/1998 11:16:00 PM
From: Dabbler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I have no money on MSFT, but I do think they stand a chance with this decision, and here's why: 1) The NSCP arguments are weak. NSCP and MSFT did not sign a single agreement to divide the market and even if they had, MSFT did not divide it, they took it. There are no laws against "attempted threat to divide a market", only laws against doing it. 2) The Apple argument is even weaker. Its a fairly common practice with all software vendors to test their products with each new OS as they are developed. I don't see how Apple should be immune to this. 3) The Intel argument is weakest. NSP was a hack created by INTC to show how QOS "could" be implemented on a PC where only Intel products were running. MSFT rejected the hack implementation, had no place for the concept in their own OS, and did not find it essential to their own marketing plans to create a new product line based on the concept, so I have little doubt they probably asked the rhetorical question to INTC: "if you want to screw up our OS, why should we spend so much energy supporting your hardware?" I don't see anything wrong with a question like that even if it does hurt McGeady's group. On the other hand, 4) I believe the AOL argument is very strong, but will only result in a judgement against MSFT to cease some of its contractual practices. This case is about all the wrong things. What we need to discuss is ways to level the playing field between apps and OS by placing business requirements on OS vendors, but which do not restrict their OS development plans in any way.