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 (21772)	11/25/1998 2:23:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Night of the Living Antitrust Case cgi.pathfinder.com Warren-Boulton, brought out one tasty tidbit Tuesday: Microsoft, he said, had an "astonishing" 38.5 percent profit margin -- more than any other high-tech firm in the Fortune 500. How, then, can this company claim that it doesn't derive benefits frrom its monopoly position? After all, there's one thing the AOL deal hasn't changed: 89 percent of those Netscape browsers are going to be viewed on a Microsoft-operated machine. Windows, too, is a beast that will not die.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (21772)	11/25/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

In a lawsuit, issues are divided into three categories: 1. Issues of fact: these are questions of historical fact, things like "Was the light red when the car went through the intersection?" "Did Bill Gates tell Allchin to cut off Netscape's air supply?", things of that nature. When there is a jury trial, these are the issues given to the jury to decide. Here, Judge Jackson will decide them. Because Judge Jackson will decide these issues, an appellate court will not overturn his findings on disputed issues of fact unless those findings are "clearly erroneous." A jury verdict is even harder to overturn, but this is still a difficult standard for a losing party to meet. 2. Issues of law: These are questions like, "What is the meaning of Section 2 of the Sherman Act?" The trial judge always decides these issues in either a court or a jury trial. The standard of review on appeal is de novo, meaning that the appellate court will not defer to the trial judge but will look at the issue as if it were deciding it in the first instance. These are much easier to overturn on appeal than factual issues. 3. Issues of mixed fact and law: These are hybrids, things like, "Did the defendant in this criminal case receive ineffective assistance of counsel?" These are usually reviewed de novo, but underlying issues of historical fact will still be subject to the clearly erroneous standard (if the trial judge was the finder of fact). I hope that explains it. And, your in-house counsel is right: we both should get a life. ;)