SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21933)12/4/1998 11:18:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh  Respond to of 24154
 
You're getting a bit legalist here, Gerald. I'm not the one to ask about this. Litigation is war, right? Is the DoJ supposed to be nice here? So, they're playing to the broader audience. They've got a case to make there, too, and Microsoft certainly has never been reticent about playing to the broader audience.

More generally, my impression of your arguments is that you think the government should be directly taking on the Chicago School / Objectivist / Libertarian / Hayek anti-antitrust argument here. Maybe, I can't judge, my understanding is that that interpretation is not currently the legally binding one. I could be wrong about that. Microsoft can present its case in those terms, and the government can rebut that case as it sees fit.

And on the "our capitalist system" argument, I'm not entirely sure how that ties back into the legal matter either. That's the heart of the Chicago School "economics and law" philosophy, but I don't think that philosophy is legally binding either, though it certainly has many adherents on the federal bench.

I would only repeat one flippant comment on the "consumer" theory here. The Microsoft argument seems to be that whatever they ship as Windows 9x is "what the customers want". This seems to imply that the customers don't want an OS that sucks less, which seems like a market failure to me.



To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21933)12/4/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24154
 
>>> Our capitalist system does not rely on people doing what is right. It instead assumes people are basically selfish, even evil,

>>> What makes predatory conduct wrong is the fact that the conduct in question is not profit-maximizing,

Gerry - yuck!

Even Adam Smith would be dismayed at these statements. Though you could take some of what he wrote out of context to support them.

Markets depend on prices being optimised for efficient distribution of resources. However, society cannot continue to exist if all it's members have the philosophy you outline above. Most people do the right thing, even more than right, most of the time. If this were not true nothing would ever get done. We would spend all our time plotting and robbing.

It is true that politicians, corporate leaders and ladder climbers have a weak ethical structure. So we have to rein them in. Especially now, as Americas predator/producer ratio has gotten dangerously high. In Adam Smith's time, the vast majority of the population was scolded every Sunday, or more frequently, by their bishops, priests and clergymen to eschew greed and help their neighbors and be good citizens. While impulses may have been often otherwise, this no doubt had an effect, as no-one wanted to become the local paragon of greed. Even a truly greedy man like Carnegie would in the last third of his life devote himself to giving something back to the world. Adam Smith and the others of his day could never have imagined the (national internal, not international) consequences of unbridled capitalism in a society with no moral foundation whatever. For which, one really has to look at today's Russia.

Sadly, all that was based on a view of the physical universe that science has destroyed, and we have not been able to replace that portion of the societal structure. Yet, that is, for a lot of folks are working on that project, in places far from Silicon Valley, Washington DC, and Wall Street, in spirit if not in miles.

>>> So what is it that Gates' evasion is supposed to prove?

I guess you are just testing to see if we are conscious here Gerry.

The point of course is that most people viewing the tape segments have reacted as if they were watching their 14 year old explain why they got home three hours late. The implication leapt to being that everyone was really in the know, and everything MSFT did was deliberate policy, directed from the top. We are tempted to these conclusions because Gates is so transparently bad at testimony that we will make the unjustified leap to the idea that he is dissembling constantly. I guess that's what happens to you when you have 80 billion dollars - never having to make excuses convincingly. I see this as a major blow to MSFT.

Chaz



To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21933)12/5/1998 1:12:00 AM
From: Bearded One  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24154
 

>>"That shows that someone has something to hide or knows that they have done something wrong," Boies said.

Our capitalist system does not rely on people doing what is right.


I think we can safely assume that, as far as business goes, Bill Gates is not overly concerned with right or wrong in any abstract sense. I think the correct context here is that Gates knew he was doing something wrong in the legal sense. Our capitalist system does rely on people following the laws, more or less. That's why you get the bucks, right?



To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21933)12/5/1998 11:53:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh  Respond to of 24154
 
Outside the Courthouse, a Spin War Rages businessweek.com

I was remiss in following up rudedog's hint on BW coverage, they've really got a lot. Index at businessweek.com, which lead me to this on point article of the day, on the relevance of Gates' testimony.

Outside the Courthouse, a Spin War Rages At stake isn't so much Judge Jackson's decision, but the hearts and minds of consumers, Congress, and even the Supreme Court.

Hearts and minds, now where have we heard that before? Hello, Susan? Next, we have the amusing aside of the day.

Not long ago, a gaggle of reporters stood on the U.S. District courthouse steps, taking notes as they listened to a man dressed in pinstripes. Television cameras were recording the scene. A scraggly protestor in braids and T-shirt approached the circle, prancing around and screaming profanities about President Clinton. Reporters cut him short, letting him know he had the wrong spin group -- witnesses from Kenneth Starr's grand jury were leaving from another door. "Uh?" he said, stunned. "This is Microsoft," reporters shouted. The dejected protestor moved on, and Mark Murray, Microsoft's chief spokesman, continued his spiel on the day's events in the courtroom.

I've been following that other quasi-legal matter too, but the local one is still closer to my heart. More important to the techno-legal wonk contingent, too. I have to apologize again for last week's blowback from that other war here, with the local screaming of profanities. I don't think it will happen again.

In a political setting like the impeachment hearings, spin is everything. The reality that Clinton's detractors and supporters create for the public will determine his fate. On the other hand, in most trials, all that really matters is the judge's view of the evidence. But in a case with so much at stake, it may be that the battle for the hearts and minds of the public outside the Microsoft courtroom is as important as winning over U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson inside it. After all, reading the headlines every day are Microsoft shareholders, consumers, a conservative Congress skittish about toying with corporate success, and higher-court judges who at the next stage will have something to say about it.

A GEM OF A P.R. TOOL. In the spin wars, the government's ultimate weapon is the Bill Gates deposition videotape. Its value in helping the government prove an antitrust violation may be questionable. Yes, Gates's memory lapses about key documents and decisions could raise doubts in Judge Jackson's mind about the credibility of Microsoft executives who will testify. But as a P.R. tool, the deposition is a gem -- perhaps even better than Gates in person. If Gates were called, only the people in the courtroom would see him testify. Now, within moments after a deposition tape is shown in court, a Justice official rushes a copy to TV crews waiting outside.


Microsoft is always welcome to bring on Bill to tell the "truth", but with the written direct testimony structure that's problematic. On the other hand, a written deposition might be to Bill's advantage, it would keep the visible sneering and disdain for the "totally random, beyond bizarre" lawyers between the lines. Microsoft must be free to innovate, you know.

Both camps are also aiming to win over Congress. Though some Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), already are on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon, others would just as soon slash the Antitrust Div.'s budget. Microsoft's spinmeisters constantly harp on the idea that the government is causing havoc in the marketplace by singling out a major U.S. success story. Alternatively, by inflicting as much damage as it can on Microsoft's image, Justice can help create the perception among lawmakers that the case is worthwhile. Even if Justice ultimately loses the legal battle, if the government can leave the impression that Gates is a bully who doesn't play fair, lawmakers and the public can come away with the belief that there was no harm in Justice trying to rein him in.

Hello again Susan. The line about the Antitrust Div. budget was my original take long before any of the current action started. I was a bit surprised about the lead role of Hatch, even if he still remains under probation with the ilk for his faithful role in shepherding all the Reagan era Chicago School types onto the federal bench. Too bad newfound Senate friend of Bill Gates Lauch Faircloth went down on the other Bill's problems, old home team whiner Slade "Salvage Rider" Gorton could use a little help with the ever popular "communist" name calling. As Bill may have said to Slivka, we are all communists now.

Cheers, Dan.