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 (21507)	11/17/1998 1:34:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Microsoft Browser Is Said to Irk Some Big Corporate Customers nytimes.com "Show me the deadweight loss"? Is that a legalism, Gerald? On the eternal Chicago School "Where's the harm" question, I've always expressed the opinion that if Microsoft had some meaningful competition, they might ship an OS that sucks less, but I admit that's not a direct answer. Anyway, here's a story from Saturday on Weadock's direct testimony. In a statement issued this evening, Microsoft said, " Weadock's testimony is a collection of opinions, not fact." As opposed to Bill's testimony of the blank slate his mind has become on everything at issue here. No problem with opinions versus facts when you can't remember a thing about it, and don't even remember what the words mean anymore. Think Bill will be singing the HAL 9000 rendition of "Bicycle Built for Two" before it's over? Weadock found that the quandary had cost Microsoft some business because "some companies are resisting or electing not to use Windows 98 largely or in part because it would force them to have a two-browser desktop." He mentioned only one such company by name: Chrysler. But Weadock found that Microsoft's strategy is having the company's desired effect in other cases. For example, he quotes an unidentified Boeing executive as telling a Justice Department investigator that the company decided to begin using Internet Explorer principally because "we do not have a choice." "The integration between Internet Explorer and the operating system cannot be fully disabled," the Boeing executive was quoted as saying. "Our only choice is whether we install two browsers or just install Internet Explorer." But when IE is what the customers want, why would they want to choose anything else? And, by definition, Windows, whatever the current version is, is what the customers want! It's the best seller! Whatever Microsoft throws into it, it's what the market demands!! Nobody wants an OS that sucks less, otherwise Microsoft would ship one. In its statement, Microsoft argued that "the Government has handpicked companies and individuals which support its claim that the integration of Internet Explorer technologies into Windows is bad for customers." By choosing only these people, the statement adds, "the Government handed Weadock a stacked deck." What's the point of having defense attorneys anyway. Look at all the people OJ didn't kill. John Gotti, too. I'd say Bill should go back to acting as his own attorney, except he can't seem to remember anything about it anymore. Cheers, Dan.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21507)	11/17/1998 4:27:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

>>> So here we finally have an attempt, however weak, by the government to show how Microsoft's anticompetitive technical decisions harm consumers. <<< I would think it would be obvious that MSFT keeping everybody else who might want to create products or improve the product out of the Internet/Windows game is an obvious case for consumer harm. Competition works and is the foundation of our economy. There may be those here who don't think so, but I think it is obvious to this judge. I think the main question here is just whether MSFT can prevent the judge from circumventing their tame appeals panel. Because this guy is finding them guilty. Cheers, Chaz