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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale J. who wrote (13495)	1/15/1999 4:11:00 PM
From: trouthead	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

People keep saying that earnings don't matter and that is not true, not even for the net stocks. It's the GROWTH. Why is it that people don't talk about that part of the equation. And I am not picking on you Dale, you are just the most recent person to have said that. As long as high growth is perceived a stock will trade ahead of it's earnings proportionately because investors today take a longer view of the market than previously. That is the new paradigm. It's not ignoring fundamentals, but factoring in growth. Watch what happens to any stock as soon as it's prospects for growth dry up. This is why YHOO can have the market cap equal or greater than Sears, because sears has no chance in hell of even 50% growth where as YHOO and SUNW do. I would love to hear what others think about this. I really think it's the Growth. jb

To: Dale J. who wrote (13495)	1/15/1999 4:42:00 PM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Dear sorrowful Dale: Did you watch Abbey Cohen today??? If you didnt you should have. She gave an awesome speech including DETAILED explanation as to why she is BULLISH on USA and TECHNOLOGY in Particular. Suggest you watch CNBC tonight and see if they run a repeat. After listening to her I wouldnt even CONSIDER shorting any tech stocks here. JDN

To: Dale J. who wrote (13495)	1/15/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Dale: My good friend. It is always a pleasure to cyber chat with you! For the record and by your posts let me make the following statements: 1. You have a short position in SUNW at $68/shr, (and perhaps some at $74, and maybe even some at $104/shr). 2. You have a short position in ORCL at $35/shr. 3. You have a short position in CPQ at $35/shr (or perhaps at $44/shr). And yet you claim to have an awsome return in your investments and are not bothered by these losses. May I ask you to please (and for the record) give me a list of stocks that you are long (as well as being short). I would like to follow your portfolio by the end of this year to see the great gains. Many thanks in advance, and best regards, Addi Jamshidi

To: Dale J. who wrote (13495)	1/15/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: alydar	Respond to of 64865

Some entertainment for the weekend. Old Essay Haunts Microsoft Witness By TED BRIDIS .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- Microsoft's first witness at its antitrust trial gave ground at the end of his opening week on the stand, confronted by government lawyers with an essay he wrote 16 years ago that appeared to contradict his testimony. ''My immediate reaction is, what could I have been thinking?'' economist Richard Schmalensee said Thursday. ''But I'm happy to discuss it. ... It does not provide a good indication of my present views.'' Schmalensee, a dean at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that Microsoft's high profits are not sufficient evidence alone to conclude that the software giant wields monopoly power. Justice Department lawyer David Boies showed Schmalensee a 1982 essay in the Harvard Law Review in which he wrote that ''persistent, excess profits provide a good indication of long-run power.'' The government alleges that Microsoft used its influence as the maker of the dominant Windows operating system to try to ''crush'' rival Netscape Communications Corp., whose popular Internet software competes with Microsoft's. Among the government's most sensational charges is that Microsoft sought illegally to divide the market for Internet software during a June 1995 meeting with Netscape. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has called the charge ''an outrageous lie,'' saying the meeting ''was to discuss various technologies Microsoft proposed sharing with Netscape.'' Just before it ended the presentation of its case Wednesday, the government released more than 2,000 pages of documents, including some e-mail messages about the June 1995 meeting. In one exchange, Microsoft's Dan Rosen told Gates that during the meeting Netscape ''seemed OK'' with the company's plans to build Internet software features into Windows. But co-worker Thomas Reardon, who also was at the meeting, called Rosen's assessment ''bunk'' and told Gates, ''There was a noticeable increase in the level of tension'' on that subject. Gates wrote to another executive praising Reardon for ''reading the situation pretty well,'' and he called Rosen's opinions ''great, but I agree he is being a little naive.'' In another e-mail, Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft executive, wrote five weeks after the meeting confirming that the company had intended ''to leverage a relationship with Netscape ... to cede the (browser) to us or at least give us some major advantage.'' In response, Rosen wrote: ''If no agreement, we should gear up to compete.'' Both Maritz and Rosen are expected to testify for Microsoft in the coming weeks. Earlier Thursday, the government turned its attention again to what is happening behind the scenes at the trial, quizzing Schmalensee about his conversations outside the courtroom during breaks in testimony. The exchange followed a contentious hearing when U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson prohibited Microsoft lawyers -- over their objections -- from talking to their own witnesses outside court. The judge said in a private meeting with lawyers late Wednesday that he worried about Microsoft ''woodshedding a witness.'' The Associated Press obtained transcripts of the meeting Thursday. ''I do not want witnesses, when they are on cross-examination ... to be conferring during recesses and overnight adjournments to improve the quality of their testimony,'' Jackson said, adding he was unclear about such matters ''until my court of appeals told me that I was wrong in a criminal case.'' The issue could become important when the government next week begins questioning some of Microsoft's top executives, who will not be able to talk to lawyers until afterward. The issue surfaced after Schmalensee acknowledged talking with a Microsoft lawyer and later with an economics colleague during breaks in the trial and using information they provided in his testimony. AP-NY-01-15-99 0257EST Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.