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: mozek who wrote (13163)	12/12/1998 4:43:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

I belief that Judge Jackson would have clearly ruled against MSFT if they had not won at the appeals stage, that is, they made him look incompetent. I don't think he will take the chance this time. I am saying that my faith is not truly in the justice system but more so in the judge's pride and credibility. He would not want to look stupid again by the appeals court. I don't think that the case can be pushed to the Supreme Court skipping all of the other levels of appeals as was previously rumored. He has the authority to push it straight to the Supreme Court under some "obscure" law. Due to the Netscape/Aol deal and now the SUN/Oracle challenge --- he won't be able to justify it. CONCLUSION: He is back to making sure his decision can stand up at the appeals level

To: mozek who wrote (13163)	12/12/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

IF JUDGE JACKSON RULES IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND FORCES MSFT TO OFFER A BROWSERLESS VERSION OF WINDOWS 98;--GUESS WHAT HAS HAPPENED ? THIS WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO SAYING THAT THE APPEALS COURT WAS WRONG IN THEIR DECISION THAT ALLOWED MSFT TO INTEGRATE THE BROWSER IN WINDOWS 95 !!!! NO APPEAL JUDGE WOULD LIKE THIS. THEY WILL TAKE IT PERSONALLY NO MATTER WHO PRESIDES OVER THE APPEAL. TO HAVE A LOWER COURT JUDGE QUESTION YOUR JUDGEMENT ---- THEY WILL TAKE OFFENSE AND GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO RULE IN MSFT'S FAVOR. THEREFORE MICROSOFT WINS!!!!! (ON THIS ISSUE)

To: mozek who wrote (13163)	12/13/1998 3:38:00 AM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Under your view there is no such thing as "application" code; all code is either OS or potentially OS, depending on market driven decisions about how it is to be distributed. One can "integrate" anything and call it OS, and bits of the "integrated" code will of course be useful to other applications in the same class. A more principled division puts browsers squarely in the application category, IMHO, and this is obvious from the fact that even Microsoft has distributed IE as an application (even if you disagree w.r.t. Windows, consider that there is a Unix version of IE which nobody can claim is an integrated part of that OS). Suppose Microsoft for marketing or legal reasons decided Solitaire was henceforth to be an integrated part of the OS (rather than simply a bundled game application), and included an "integrated" "Solitaire API" in Windows 2000. That API could certainly be useful to me if I wanted to write a Solitaire-like game, and Solitaire could probably be made more faster and efficient if it had hooks directly into the OS (thereby benefiting consumers, or at least some of them). Under your thinking, would Solitaire then indeed be an integrated part of the OS? Why or why not? Where do YOU draw the line between application and OS? Or isn't there one? Instead of Solitaire, consider Quicken (which you call an application in your posting); suppose Microsoft decided to deal with Quicken once and for all and made Money an "integrated" part of Windows 2000. What would stop them? JMHO.