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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (22520)	2/1/1999 5:22:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 24154

OT, but I just had to laugh at this one: From news.com "It's time to build a foundation here for a multibillion-dollar company," [Amazon's Chief financial officer Joy Covey] said. In other words, Amazon currently lacks the foundation for a multibillion-dollar company. Amazon is currently valued at 19 billion dollars. Oh, well, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (22520)	2/2/1999 12:54:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Federal Filings Newswires Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Monday, February 1, 1999 DOJ Attorney Makes Short Shrift Of MSFT Demo * * * Boies, driving home his point, said that the video demonstration suggested advantages gained through deep integration in Windows 98, but these same benefits could be achieved by purchasing Windows 95 and adding Internet Explorer 4.0. Allchin agreed, but again explained that adding IE 4.0 is more analogous to a Windows upgrade than adding a separate product and it didn't matter how the consumer received the browsing ability. Boies quickly shot back that it did matter because in one instance the consumer has a choice. * * * ========================================================== The omitted parts of this article basically pan Allchin's testimony about a videotape, which Boies very effectively undermined, not devastatingly so, but very effectively just the same. I cut all that out to focus on one thing: Boies keeps going back to the "choice" theme, over and over again. I guess the government thinks this case is about choice. However, this case is not about choice. This case is about principle. As in, when is it appropriate not to follow a principle, and when should one compromise that principle in the name of some short-term goal? For example, when, in a free market economy, do we ignore the basic principle that private enterprises, not the government, should decide what actual combinations of products or services will maximize consumer welfare? Is it when the government wants to intervene so consumers will have a choice? And, are there ever instances when reprehensible conduct should be allowed to go unpunished in order to uphold and reaffirm the validity of greater principles too vital to be compromised, so that other actors in the economy will know that their right to engage in similar, if less egregious, conduct will be respected? If so, what conduct, and what principles? Just some questions to think about between now and the appeal. ;)