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: rudedog who wrote (21692)	11/23/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>I think the important distinction is between competition which gets eliminated because the competitors fail to understand the dynamics of their industry, which include both technical and business dynamics, and those that get eliminated by some unfair practices, who otherwise would have survived to provide better and more innovative products. <<< I disagree. MSFT lawyers also try to make this distinction, but it is a distinction without a difference. That is because the beneficial effects of more competition, even if due to antitrust action, are a matter of what will happen in the future. It can hardly be said that a competitor who has been punished for a mistake in the market or a technical dead end (or a superior technical dead end, e.g. betamax, with a business mistake impeding it perhaps) won't learn. Typically, they do. Ditto for new companies, or especially so. So reviving the chance that they might compete against the giant still benefits society. So does not destroying the jobs, suppliers, community structure and so on that are attendant on even smaller competitors. Thus one can pursue antitrust and other measures against a monopoly just because they are too large, too smothering, not because they did anything wrong. Or at least, I hope we can. We can also have the government try to stimulate growth and competition in other ways, which it does, especially if the large company is not giving away bribes in DC via it's lobbyists to keep that from happening. Don't mistake the issue of fairness with the issue of competition. Cheers, Chaz

To: rudedog who wrote (21692)	11/23/1998 2:44:00 PM
From: Scotsman	Respond to of 24154

I have never thought the NSCP vs MSFT suit was the dangerous one for MSFT. Its over, NSCP moved on to bigger better things a while back. Todays merger shouldn't really have that big an impact on the suit as they are concerned with what MSFT did in the past, not what impact it has in the current business community. But I have always thought the SUNW Java suit was potentially much more dangerous for MSFT. If they can prove that MSFT intentionally "rigged" Windows not to run it, or worse to run it poorly, than MSFT is really up the creek, deservedly so I may add.

To: rudedog who wrote (21692)	11/24/1998 12:42:00 AM
From: Jay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Rudy Re "the browser itself becomes just one of many possible windows into this messaging infrastructure, and a more and more trivial one at that. " I disagree. I think the browser has proved to be the ultimate user-interface. All other other windows are trivial compared to the browser IMHO. This is the only application/interface that millions of people have learned and mastered with no help at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Microsoft realized that the browser was a better interface than Windows and that's why they've tried to integrate the browser with the OS. At some point in the future the browser will become the interface to the OS (and then, as NOISE etc hope, the OS itself becomes irrelevant). I'm sure you've heard this argument many times. Do you think its going to come about?