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 (22507)	1/29/1999 11:02:00 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Gerald -- I have a fairly minor short position on MSFT (puts actually). Don't ask why, I sometimes have these lapses in judgement. What I was wondering is -- do you think this turn of events is significant enough to have any impact on the stock? Is this a turning point? Or more likely just another in a long, drawn out but eventually pointless litigation? Just curious to see what others think. Thanks in advance.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22507)	1/30/1999 1:56:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Wow. So, can they revert to the Natural Monopoly defense?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22507)	1/30/1999 2:13:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Microsoft Told to Turn Over a Key Internal Document nytimes.com Gerald, here's the NYT article on that from yesterday, I've been remiss in keeping up here, spending too much time elsewhere. Of course, this shows that Microsoft was, er, dissembling all along, but who, exactly, thought otherwise? Jeez, I think it was a year ago, last January, when this was all being discussed, all the old "it's so modular, it's integrated" lines, or vice versa, depending on context. My view, from the evidence at the time, was that IE "integration" with Windows was bad software engineering, to the extent that it was really inseperable, but it didn't seem that it really was inseperable. This gave me some respect for Microsoft on the engineering front, if not on the PR front. I got to go digging and see if my memory is correct on this. But Microsoft officials argue that how much code is actually shared is beside the point. "Whether a piece of software or some functionality can be removed from a software product does not mean it was not a useful, integrated part of the product in the first place," Allchin said in his testimony this week. "My hand can be surgically removed from my body, but it was certainly a well-integrated part of my body before that surgery." The government's position on the specific issue of tying the browser to the operating system is constrained by a federal appeals court ruling last June that Microsoft had the right to bundle its browser with Windows. So the tussle over the spreadsheet is more about tarnishing Microsoft's credibility than proving the browser can be separated. "This is something Microsoft said it couldn't do," said David Boies, the Justice Department's lead attorney. "And it turns out they have done it. It underscores the point we've been making that Microsoft had no plausible reason to weld the whole Internet Explorer into the operating system." Boies is expected to ask Allchin about the spreadsheet on Monday, when the executive takes the stand for cross-examination. Seems like old Paul "Air Supply" Maritz got through the cross-examination ok, poor Allchin may have it a little tougher. Cheers, Dan.