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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21575)	11/19/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I think this conspiracy theory stuff misses the point. One "theme" that seems to be coming through loud and clear from this trial, at least in the news reports, is Microsoft's insistence that its competitors are engaging in the very same conduct that it is being hauled into court for. Hence the "Java Conspiracy" at the same time that these very same companies are egging DOJ on to sue Microsoft for trying to conspire with Netscape to divide the browser market, hence the discussion in cross-x of Barksdale, I believe, about how Netscape has always been giving away its browser for free, the same predatory conduct Microsoft is being lambasted for. I would bet they have brought/will bring out more examples of this "double standard." Of course, Boies points out, correctly, that Microsoft is an alleged monopolist, while Netscape, et al. are not. Hence, under hornbook antitrust law, which is what Judge Jackson will apply here, the standards can be stricter for Microsoft the monopolist than for its non-monopolist competitors. I could be reading more into this than is there, but I smell something here. I find it hard to believe that they are emphasizing this theme over and over again just for PR or just to improve the atmospherics of the trial, since the strategy is very unlikely to sway Judge Jackson, who presumably understands perfectly the reasons why monopolists are treated differently than non-monopolists. On the other hand, three months of reading F.A. Hayek's political philosophy has given me a strong sense, at least in his world, of the importance of equal treatment under the law as a component of the rule of law in a liberal society. The difference in treatment that antitrust law accords to monopolists in order to achieve a particular economic distribution or outcome violates this very basic principle. I'm not sure whether or how they are going to translate this idea into a legal argument, or if that is even what they are trying to do. It just seems to me there is potentially more to this than meets the eye.