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: Dabbler who wrote (21355)	11/11/1998 1:50:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Again, a very nice factual discussion. How will Microsoft respond when the government shows, either through internal e-mail, expert testimony, or through whatever evidence they may have, that, in fact, Microsoft's proffered technical justifications for pressuring Intel on NSP are not plausible at all, but are merely a pretext for product integration decisions intended in reality to suppress competition? These types of issues, plausibility of proffered justifications for certain decisions, pretext, and whether a given decision was in fact motivated by illegally discriminatory animus come up all the time in employment discrimination, Title VII and Section 1983 cases. I am not suggesting that the court will import the McDonnell-Douglas v. Burdine test wholesale into antitrust law, or even that it would make sense to do so. I'm just saying that it may be an analogy that might throw some light on the problem and is worth exploring.

To: Dabbler who wrote (21355)	11/11/1998 3:31:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

Thanks for your input into this. I figured that at some level NSP would have to be integrated into Windows, and that Intel would make it so that the NSP would have priority over everything else in the system. There are two points to the testimony, and Microsoft's arguments adress one. That Microsoft didn't want Intel to create software that caused problems for Windows is indeed an alternative motivation than the suggested motivation that Microsoft didn't want Intel to have their own software platform. There is corroborating evidence for both arguments. The other point is that Microsoft had the power to stop a major software project by a huge powerful company. That comes through loud and clear, whatever Microsoft's motivations.