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 (21593)	11/20/1998 2:50:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Dan, one question I'd love to hear Warren-Boulton answer is whether he thinks that, absent Microsoft's predatory conduct, the PC OS market could support more than one firm on an ongoing basis. At one point in his written, he says: There is no reason to believe that the market, if left to function properly, will not in time generate alternatives to Microsoft's operating system that will be sufficiently superior to overcome the entry barrier advantage that Microsoft enjoys. But that does not really answer the question of whether the "alternatives" would be ongoing, stable competitors to Windows, or new firms who would simply replace Microsoft in the position of monopolist. His overall analysis, which is totally based on "lock-in" and "network effects" would seem to suggest not, but I sure would be curious to know what his answer is to that question.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21593)	11/20/1998 3:06:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Keith, I have to somewhat disagree with you and Gerald on the "where is Microsoft going" line. The current conspiracy theory seems consistent enough with the whole shotgun defense. Well, I agree with you in one sense. The "blame the victim" strategy, where you come up with explanations for the occurrence of an injury based on the plaintiff's own conduct or some intervening force not the defendant's responsibility is an old defense lawyer trick. It should take this judge about five seconds to see through that one. Also, I think trying to create conflicts in the evidence and undermine the credibility of government witnesses will not get very far with this judge. Microsoft clearly has zero credibility in his eyes, and the government would really have to screw up to drop below that. Finally, I agree that a lot of what they are doing comes across as diversionary tactics designed to deflect attention from the real issues in the case. A lot of the PR spinning of this trial seems to fit that characterization to a "tee." The story about how, first, Netscape imagined the market division proposal, and then that they sprang it on Microsoft as an effort to entrap them certainly comes across as PR spinning and diversion. In any event, even if Neukom and the corporate side lawyers believe their own propaganda enough not to realize all of this (which I doubt), certainly the outside lawyers, if they are doing their job, do realize it and are doing what they are doing in spite of it. So that leads me to think there is more to it than meets the eye.