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 (21616)	11/20/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: garrick le	Respond to of 24154

The more I learn about Microsoft,the more monopolistic and manipulative they turn out to be. Listen to Mark Murray speak,the so-called Microsoft spin doctor. What he said is completely contradictory to what happened in the court room and all the evidences presented. To me now ,Microsoft is a collection of incompetent programmer(their software sucks compared to Unix) and law-breaking and manipulative executives.Of course there are exceptions but those kinds of people seem rampant at Microsoft. Their public image is taking a hit everyday now as the trial drags on and more evidence presented. Yet,they are the most successful company in the world :-)) Who said life is fair :-)) GL

To: Bearded One who wrote (21616)	11/20/1998 6:31:00 PM
From: Dermot Burke	Respond to of 24154

Thanks Bearded One for the GW memo . If you come across any more good stuff pls. post. thanks. beavis got me, too.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21616)	11/20/1998 10:08:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

The problem with reading internal memos is that they do not mean very much. It's all about anticompetitive effects. The Warren-Boulton testimony, now that means something. And there is some rather interesting stuff at the end of that memo, like where he defines predatory conduct, and the following: 199.There is no guarantee, of course, that independent browsers will bring these benefits or reduce the monopoly power of Microsoft in the operating system market, even if Microsoft did not engage in exclusionary conduct. That is a matter for the market – not monopolists or engineers or economists – to decide. The important point is that the market should not be prevented by Microsoft's anticompetitive practices from making that decision. If you look at the case, the government is going to prove that Microsoft is a natural monopoly, and is using predatory conduct to reinforce that natural monopoly. And, if you look at how the stock price has behaved since they filed suit, I think it is safe to say that investors either do not think Microsoft's predatory conduct will be banned, or think that its predatory conduct is not a very significant part of the barriers to entry that keep the Microsoft monopoly in place. So, here's Boulton, basically admitting that, if you enact the restrictions on Microsoft's behavior that he says earlier in the report would not harm Microsoft's legitimate interests (with all of the attendant costs those restrictions would impose), there is no guarantee that the benefits of competition in the OS market will accrue. I don't know . . . I think the government may have some problems.