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: t2 who wrote (14279)	1/13/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: J. P.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Judge in Microsoft now wearing hat as prosecuter also. What a joke, what a sham, what a crock of sh*t this whole thing is. Are these really our elected officials? I guess now that the prosecution has rested, the judge has to foul up the defense. Can't we get an impartial judge, is this too much to ask? Doesn't have to be pro Microsoft, neutral would work just fine for me. Judge sharply questions Microsoft witness (New throughout, Microsoft witness begins) By David Lawsky WASHINGTON, Jan 13 (Reuters) - The judge in the Microsoft case sharply questioned the company's top economic witness Wednesday when he learned the witness had defined the critical antitrust concept of ''market'' one way in this case and differently in two others. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson jumped into the cross-examination of Microsoft Corp's. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) first defense witness, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Richard Schmalensee, to determine if he was contradicting himself. Schmalensee rejected the customary definitions of market used by the government, which alleges Microsoft holds a monopoly in the market for personal computer operating systems. Instead, Schmalensee testified that market definition was ''particularly difficult'' in this case and chose to define instead a ''platform market,'' which would include many software companies that may be potential competitors for Microsoft. A ''platform'' is software on which other software can run. Government lawyer David Boies asked Schmalensee about his testimony for Microsoft against two other software companies, the Salt Lake City firm of Caldera, Inc. and the Danbury, Conn., firm of Bristol Technologies, Inc. In those cases, Schmalensee testified that Microsoft existed in a market similar to that defined by the government. That jarred Judge Jackson into questioning the witness himself. After a few questions Jackson finally said: ''I want to determine whether what you said in the Bristol case is consistent with what you have defined as 'platform competition' in this case.'' The judge was interested because market definition is the heart and soul of any antitrust case. Schmalensee conceded during questioning that Microsoft has no serious competitors selling operating systems to major personal computer makers. So if the market is defined as ''personal computers'' then Microsoft holds nearly all of the market, one of the key indicators of a monopoly. But if the market is defined as ''all software,'' then Microsoft holds a trivial part of the market and could not be a monopolist. In fact, Schmalensee said that neither of those definitions fits, arguing: ''This is not an area where that traditional approach'' is appropriate. But Schmalensee took a far different approach on Oct. 19, 1998, the day the antitrust trial in Washington began, when he testified in a Connecticut court for Microsoft. Asked if the ''relevant market'' including operating systems for personal computers, operating and work stations and departmental servers, Schmalensee replied that such a market ''might be a little too broad in the sense it would include things with different capability, but I wouldn't dispute it as being too narrow.'' And that prompted Judge Jackson to ask his own questions about Bristol, which makes software called ''WindU'' that allows programs written for Windows to run on a rival operating system called Unix. Jackson said the Bristol software ''may not be a competitive platform, but isn't it a species of platform?'' Schmalensee denied it, saying: ''It's a link between platforms.'' The judge on Wednesday also denied a request by Microsoft to dismiss the suit. The cross-examination of Schmalensee continues Thursday.