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 (22071)	12/9/1998 3:28:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Here's a crazy, late-night thought for you -- Farber may have just lost them the case! Recall his testimony, where he says: 28. None of the above denies the possible convenience or preference of some users for "one stop shopping" for bundled products such as the current version of Windows 98 sold as one product by Microsoft. Those OEMs and retail end users who may find this convenience outweighs any technical inefficiencies described here can certainly still choose to buy Windows 98 in the form it now exists. But only the availability of an unbundled version of Windows 98 will cure the difficulties which arise for many OEMs, application developers and retail end users who may find too burdensome the problems arising from their inability to substitute different functions and applications (such as the Web browser) for use with only parts of what is now sold as Windows Here he has conceded what will be the essence, I am sure, of Microsoft's case on appeal, that at least some consumers find the "one-stop" bundled version preferable. He talks in absolute terms about the benefits to other consumers of offering an unbundled version, but I challenge you to show me anywhere in his testimony where he shows that those benefits outweigh the costs to Microsoft of providing it. Given what we have just discussed about the importance of the relative costs and benefits of different technical configurations and the difficulty of making such comparisons, I question whether he can even make such a comparison meaningfully. But, be that as it may, if all Microsoft has to do is show that there is a plausible benefit to bundling, irrespective of costs, and if it can show plausibility by producing some credible evidence of the benefit, well, here's that evidence, right in Farber's direct testimony! I know: this is a crazy thought. But, it's late, and I'm punchy, so humor me and let me know what you think. :)

To: Bearded One who wrote (22071)	12/9/1998 6:09:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

We seem to be worried here that because the man who is the richest man in American needs to be mildly reined in, we are about to bumble off into government totalitarianism. One inevitable note sounded: Reining in monopolies as a socialist notion. This argument is hilarious. Poor Bill. Maybe he should buy a country, as some others have done. 80 billion is way more than enough for a smallish country. Actually, the lack of privacy laws that would protect us from Government snooping on our files, pictures, credit rating, medical records, purchases, net phone calls, chat groups, and email on the Internet has a zillion times more chance of kicking us off into totalitarianism than antitrust laws. Second in line for creating totalitarianism after lack of privacy: allowing the buying of elected officials as we do. As one sees now in Japan, this can have a rather bad long term effect on society. Third in line: The debasement of the Press. And somewhere on that list, last month a Judge allowed that he thought the application of pepper spray, an acid, directly on to the membranes of the eyes of logging protesters holding a passive sit in was allowable procedure, despite the protests of anti-torture groups like Amnesty International. In a situation where the protestors had not blocked themselves in, had no food, and no water, and could not have slept in the positions in which they had chained themselves. A totally self-limiting problem. (Folks, when crossing the area around the Oregon-California border, from Coos Bay to Eureka, take the same precautions you would in an unfriendly foreign country. The local cops have definitely adopted the attitudes of the survivalists, white power types, and whatnot moving there from points far to the right. And they all seem to be on steroids. Don't argue about the ticket. A word to the wise.) So, to come back to the point, if antitrust is a threat to American Liberty, I would place it way way down the list, maybe in slot 10,000 or so. But I don't think it is a threat. Lets not stand the world on it's head. Curbing excessive power is not a totalitarian notion, it is an egalitarian notion. Antitrust is an attempt to curb excessive power (whatever the take on consumerism vs competition as the motive for action.) That there are lots of university gabblers who think there should be no antitrust law is not surprising - look at who funds those business and economics chairs, conferences, fellowships, and lecture circuit spots. These are the academics who serve as the mouthpieces of the very rich. The miracle is that there are university theorists who hold the opposing opinions. Ah, well, cynical and sarcastic both. Sorry, it's late. Cheers, Chaz