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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (12907)	12/3/1998 2:41:00 AM
From: Zeem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: Rainman Vs Justice Department William H. Gates - CEO Microsoft Corporation Redmond, WA The more I see Bill Gates video taped testimony the angrier I have become. As an MSFT investor I sat and wondered why Bill chose not to seek the advice of TV consultants with regard to his behavior and appearance. While I can appreciate his taking time with each question to formulate a concise answer, what is the rocking back and forth about! Is the most innovative and humanistic company to come along in the last 100 years run by Rainman? We saw what demeanor and appearance did for the Nixon and Kennedy debate! Bill, either you feel as though being the richest man on the planet you can come off any way you feel or you really aren't aware of what your doing and the people around you are too afraid to tell you your looking like a dork in the video. Either way your messing with the rest of us who are small investors who have kept the faith hoping some day to be larger players. I'm a small investor and so I expect you to not only be the leader of the greatest corporations but to make some consideration for the people (Investors) who have put undivided faith through dollars in Microsoft! The main point in this litigation in this: Microsoft was the first to bring the world software that even Grandma could run and afford while the rest of the companies IBM, SUN, NEC, UNIX and others were busy digging deep into corporate pockets or over-charging the private sector. You come along and offer us solutions and affordability. Then through your innovation in the new Net medium you give us free software which your competitors with and the lobbied partisan help in the justice department try to sue you! This does not serve me as an American consumer! This is the point that as an American consumer the justice department wants us to pay for your browser when you have offered it to us for free. I have been running both browsers, Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator at the same time on my machine for several years now and don't see what Netscape in whining about! Both run fine! And the Operating System is friendly to either browser. I have as a result of this lawsuit sold my NSCP, SUNW and AOL shares and taken all Netscape products off of every workstation in our company and all of its affiliates. I am trying to do my little part and expect you Bill to do as much as you can to strengthen the cause. Even if it means taking some acting classes! Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, James W. Talman BS, MA JT:jt cc Silicon Investor, misc.stock.news, file

To: Bearded One who wrote (12907)	12/3/1998 3:14:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

RE: Microsoft trial The Federal government has no special privilege in a civil (or criminal trial). In this case it is Microsoft that is the "We the People" for whom the judicial rights are crafted, and the Federal government is the central government against whom the rights are projected. The judge, screwy as he seems, has a life appointment to protect him against being coerced by the government. We the people did not grant Gates a business license. At worst, the IRS gave him a tax number, and the state sold him a nondiscretionary corporate charter, and the city a permit. He has no obligation to tell us anything, unless it is evidence in a legal proceeding, and even here he is protected against self incrimination. The witness giving a deposition is required to answer questions under oath or affirmation that can be connected to the facts of the case or lead to discovery of relevant evidence. His obligations are to answer simple (not compound) questions, but only the questions that are actually asked, not to deliver learned essays that purport to answer a whole series of questions. There are many jokes that describe the consequences of a witness talking too much or lawyers asking too many questions once his question is answered. I don't think Microsoft should settle. There is no federal law against disadvantaging the competition, or causing a competitor to lose profits or lose market share as long as there is a sound business advantage for the firm. These are ancillary restraints of trade and may or may not be illegal under the rule of reason. The court will have to puzzle out the rightness or wrongness of Microsoft's acts from opinions in prior cases. If Microsoft can show that they believed the acts were motivated by their own desire for profits and survival, and not by the attempt to destroy their competition or gain (or maintain) a monopoly. That their competitor was injured or even destroyed (which it wasn't) is not illegal, unless the monopolist actually attempted to achieve that end. The proof of such wrong-doing must be based on all of the evidence, and not mere on snippets of e-mail. The antirust laws as interpreted by this Supreme Court allow robust and vigorous competition and are intended to protect consumers, not competitors.

To: Bearded One who wrote (12907)	12/3/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

1) The DOJ originally wanted to play the whole thing at once, but Microsoft objected. Bad move. In my opinion neither side should be allowed to play any video or audio taped depositions. Much of what's said in a deposition is not admissible as evidence. By being allowed to play the tapes of depositions either side would be able to admit inadmissible evidence. If the government wants to try to ridicule Bill Gates they should have had to make him one of their witnesses. Since the tapes were allowed to be played I agree that MSFT made a bad move. They should have played the entire tape. Get it all out and bore everyone to tears with it. As it is now everyone's excited about what the next episode may show, and if it doesn't show much, well you can't write much about that so you have to find something in it to fill column inches. 2) The judge has a legal right to assess the credibility of the witness. The main witness in this case is the CEO of Microsoft. He's not a witness. Find him on either witness list. 3) Have a thought experiment-- suppose Gates answered the questions completely, not just technically completely, but really completely, even helping the DOJ lawyers. He could then have added, "but we don't think it is illegal. And here's why--" Here's how the government would play the tape: "Yes, Maritz sent me that email. Yes, he said undermine Java. Yes, I worried about Java and considered it a threat to Windows. Yes, we introduced changes into Java which we knew might cause incompatibilities." CUT! It's a wrap! Later MSFT would play the rest of it, after the buzz of the headlines saying "Gates Admits Microsoft Intentionally Undermined Java". The rest of it would be a footnote.

To: Bearded One who wrote (12907)	12/3/1998 12:47:00 PM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Your point on the manner of response is well taken, but a deposition is not the place to add to an answer with an opinion or explanation. The additional information can be completely discarded by the opposing party. Of course, if he did that, we probably wouldn't have the current charades, so you make a good point. Your statement that the DOJ wanted to play the whole thing at once, but Microsoft didn't is a distortion of the facts. Microsoft first argued not to display the deposition at all. When the judge ruled that it could be displayed, Microsoft argued for it to be displayed all at once. The DOJ and Judge refused. don't introduce new keywords into Java(they really thought they could get away with that?) I assume that you know something about programming languages, so you should know better than your last statement. First, as determined in the Ashton-Tate, xBase case, a language itself cannot be copyrighted, period. Second, all computer languages today are an evolution of some previous language (Eiffel, Modula 3, Java, C++, JavaScript, VB, VBScript, etc.) Until this ruling, no one has ever, to my knowledge, been prevented from innovating in a language. Finally, Microsoft specifically negotiated for this right in its license. This was up front and clear between the parties and, while I am not an attorney, I was assured by attorneys that this was embodied in the Agreement. The judge chose to ignore that fact and interpret the language to mean that Microsoft had the right to compile Java considered non-standard only when that was really an older version of Sun's definition, not at all what Sun and Microsoft agreed. I believe that this will come out in evidence. I'm sure we'll all see how this turns out, and I hope for the future of our industry, the lynchmob does not prevail. Thanks, Mike