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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22431)	1/20/1999 12:41:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Hi! Glad to see you posting again! It's not as if Bill Gates was on drugs when he approved this, so what gives? Three possibilities: 1) Oops. People make mistakes. 2) If you have a losing hand, every decision looks bad. 3) I do believe that Bill Gates is 'spiritually' on drugs. Pride and Arrogance can win over reason, even in someone as smart as Mr. Gates. He truly must have convinced himself that he has done nothing wrong--nothing at all. And too much confidence in oneself is bound to result in warped decision making sooner or later. Or haven't you noticed that some very smart people are digging their political graves by trying to remove a President with a 65% approval rating for lying about a hummer?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22431)	1/20/1999 2:00:00 AM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Why 3 companies and not 2? I can see it now... Bill and Steve are captains and will pick teams; everybody line up against the fence... Btw, I don't think it's necessarily true that the company with Gates is a sure win. Regardless, the DOJ hasn't won yet!

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22431)	1/20/1999 3:14:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

<< It's not as if Bill Gates was on drugs when he approved this, so what gives? >> Possible: A: No leg to stand on. What they did, they did blatantly, and the gov doesn't know the half of it. B: And the economic theories used for PR dissemination, that are based on antitrust being wrongheaded in general, are bound to be of no interest to the courts. C: They have to interview the higher ups, as they are supposedly more skilled at 'honest testimony', and know what subjects to stay away from. My impression from my own experience, is that the further down the MSFT management ranks you go, the more likely you are to get detailed examples and honest and cynical answers. And few outside technical stars support MSFT. As we have seen on this forum, 90% of MSFT support is from stockholders, 90% of the opposition is from engineers, which would make it hard to find credible outside witnesses with stature to support their technical excuses. So who can they put on the stand? I think less prominent but more coherent technical and financial experts would have been better, but still weak. However, these higher ups are of the type who have always been poor liars, and have actually relied on bullying, money, toadies, and position to get their points accepted, albeit they do not know that. It is a generic human personality trait for people of high position that only the most self-aware escape. Most of them will look bad on the stand. Cheers, Chaz