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: Bill Holtzman who wrote (14035)	1/9/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Can you imagine giving back the money?! What an absurd notion. I hate to tell you this but your legal sytem is a big srew up when it comes to sueing companies. Lawyers are vultures just coming up with ideas to keep busy. They will make money if they win and if they lose, they get lots of publicity. It is too bad too that in the US, lawyers are not required to charge just for representation whether they win or lose. A lot of underemployed lawyers can band together and start working on such a thing. I think they should go after tobacco, coke, ibm, apple, oil companies, and any other big business for overcharging. No wonder the rest of the western world does not allow lawyers to charge only if they win (i think they call it contingency fees). Maybe someone can correct me on this if i am mistaken. There is no chance of them getting the money back -- that part I agree with.

To: Bill Holtzman who wrote (14035)	1/9/1999 11:01:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Can you imagine giving back the money?! What an absurd notion. Oh yeah? Who is John Galt?

To: Bill Holtzman who wrote (14035)	1/9/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

They did a story on this on NPR Marketplace on Friday. The reporter made very clear that these particular consumer groups in the past have been somewhat anti-business (but I dont remember any examples they gave as to how they reached that conclusion). They interviewed someone on the msft side and someone on the CFA side. CFA said msft windows was overpriced, based on the trend in computers in general (incl. monitors, hardware + software) where prices are falling over time. Msft said that since windows now includes windows + the old dos (which you used to have to buy separately) the price of windows is indeed falling, and the issue here is a flaw in the CFA model for determining pricing metrics etc. I was convinced msft would win this one after hearing this piece. FWIW Michelle

To: Bill Holtzman who wrote (14035)	1/9/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

If people like the performance / price of the products, then people pay for it , otherwise they have other choices, that what we call free market economy. If Microsoft have to pay back 10 billions $ to the consumers, then how much Crysler should pay back to the consumers ? Honda Accord sold for $20000, while the Benze Mercede S560 sold for more than $130K, and they all do the same thing, i.e move your body from location A to location B . There is no business of the government about what price companies should set on their products, unless we are a communist state. Why not let the market force make the decision ????????????????????