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 (21825)	11/28/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

My (non-lawyerly) interpretation is that a monopoly has more abilities than a non-monopoly and that the only constraints are on those extra abilities. Netscape doesn't have the ability to for an OEM to take its browser. Sun can't offer an ISP a place on the Windows desktop if the ISP will run its version of java. Maybe I'm wrong as far as law, but that's my view of a level playing field. Microsoft is the only one in the room with the machine gun, to push the analogy further. Like it or not, we live in a society where gunslingers need a lot of protection. The law treats all gunslingers the same. For most gunslingers, the law is that anyone can acquire whatever weapons they choose as long as they (a) keep their promises, and (b) don't lie or cheat. The theory is that the fewest deaths will result because all the gunslingers will keep each other at bay. We should also keep in mind that arms technology is rapidly advancing; today's latest model machine guns will be replaced tomorrow by other, better machine guns, and, in the not too distant future, much more effective weapons of mass destruction. Now, as luck would have it, Microsoft's gunslingers were the first to acquire machine guns. They are using their overwhelming superiority in arms to keep other gunslingers from also acquiring or developing their own machine guns or other, more effective, armaments. However, in legal terms, nothing has changed; anyone can still acquire whatever weapons they choose as long as they (a) keep their promises, and (b) don't lie or cheat. The government has proposed to introduce measures they claim will cause fewer deaths because they will take away Microsoft's ability to use its machine guns to kill. They propose to do this in one of several ways: (1) Break up the Microsoft band into several smaller bands, and hope that mutual deterrence will result in fewer deaths; (2) Impose rules that will prohibit Microsoft from using its machine guns to kill, hopefully directly resulting in fewer deaths; (3) Give a copies of Microsoft's machine guns, or other, more effective guns, to certain of the other gunslingers; or (4) Force Microsoft to take a hit off of Netscape's stash of chemical weapons. All the while, the other gunslingers will be allowed to develop their own machine guns, or whatever other weapons they choose, and to use them against each other and against Microsoft. Only Microsoft will be subject to these rules, all on the theory that to impose these restraints on Microsoft but not on anyone else will result in fewer deaths. Furthermore, each of these actions will have consequences. Breaking the company up might result, not in deterrence, but in a free for all, which might actually increase the number of deaths. Prohibiting Microsoft from using its machine guns to kill will reduce Microsoft's ability to protect itself, and may result in a reduction in deterrence, causing, if not an increase in deaths, at least a reduction in the present rate of decrease. Giving Microsoft's competitors all copies of Microsoft's machine guns, might cause them all to kill each other off, and a lot of the rest of us will die in the bargain. Forcing Microsoft to take a hit off of Netscape's stash of chemical weapons might kill the company, and deterrence will be reduced, again causing, if not an increase in deaths, at least a reduction in the present rate of decrease. So, it does not make sense to do any of these things if the end result will not be fewer deaths. And it is not at all clear to me that fewer deaths will result. ;)

To: Bearded One who wrote (21825)	11/29/1998 12:06:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Downloading software even instantaneously creates problems. We can argue about how much problems, but certainly more problems then buying the computer with all the softwre pre-installed by the computer manufacturer who supposedly knows what's going on. Ever here of DLL hell? Doesn't happen with pre-installed software. Well, now we've shifted from market foreclosure to software incompatibility. Every bit of software that ever came out of a box is subject to the same analysis. Yet, no one is suggesting that, if the OEM packages, say, Novell, in a separate box that the user has to unpack and load herself, then Novell is being foreclosed from the market. Aside from the fact that the relevant software does not come in a box, why is the analysis any different for the internet? AOL's service is not going to be a distribution channel for Netscape. They still have to run IE to get onto that desktop. And even if they set it up so that the first thing that happens when you sign on is that they download Netscape, well, see # 1 above. Sun is not going to sit around and let AOL not provide an alternative to Windows and IE. And AOL is not going to make it difficult for its users to download its own browser, Netscape. Its reputation, after all, rides on all aspects of its service being easy to use to the point of being idiot-proof. If anyone has the incentive to make it easy for consumers to use Netscape, AOL certainly does. But if, against all dictates of the marketplace and common sense, they do, see my response to your #1, above.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21825)	11/29/1998 12:18:00 AM
From: Jan Garrity Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Please fill be in on bandwidth and cable tv and just how MSFT will get in on this!! Through WEB TV??? AOL is going into it in a really big way and will announce in JAN!!I believe more eyeballs will watch TV than PC for internet ,email etc!!!Feedback please!!

To: Bearded One who wrote (21825)	11/29/1998 3:57:00 AM
From: XiaoYao	Respond to of 24154

My (non-lawyerly) interpretation is that a monopoly has more abilities than a non-monopoly and that the only constraints are on those extra abilities. Netscape doesn't have the ability to for an OEM to take its browser. Sun can't offer an ISP a place on the Windows desktop if the ISP will run its version of java. Maybe DOJ should set up a rule to divide the companies into heavy-weight, middle-weight, light-weight, tiny-weight, etc. ranges, and only companies in the same range could compete each other. Because big companies have more cash than small companies, a well-known brand has more recognition than a start up name, company with good political influence CEO could ask government to sue its competitors. MSFT doesn't have ability to ask SUNW to pre-load IE on Solaris, MSFT doesn't have ability to ask AOL to market MSN, what else? MSFT can't force McNealy to shut up his big mouth.