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: Bearded One who wrote (22649)	2/11/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: Dermot Burke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

They could have handled a host of issues differently . But that is obviously not the mindset out there.

To: Bearded One who wrote (22649)	2/12/1999 1:14:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

Yes, I agree that admitting the truth and then defending it is far better. Perhaps it finally dawned on somebody that, if the conduct in question is legal, they have nothing to hide, cover up or be ashamed of. If the conduct in question is not legal, lying about it will not make it legal; it will only accentuate the fact that Microsoft knows it is illegal. Maybe someone realizes, how can Microsoft argue on appeal with a straight face that conduct is or should be legal, when all their trial witnesses are behaving as if they did something wrong and are trying to cover it up or lie about it? That's why I would not be overly concerned if I were them over concessions like the ones Cameron made. If Microsoft cannot show that predatory conduct by a natural monopolist is or should be legal, they are going to lose the case anyway. On a somewhat related subject, given that Microsoft has blown its credibility, who do you think they will recruit as their amicus (amici) curiae to make all the policy and other arguments their own lawyers are no longer (or perhaps never were) in a position to make credibly? Do you think someone like Cato might come into the case to argue antitrust policy and principle from the classical liberal or Chicago School perspective? Do you think they might come in at the trial level to try to argue remedies, or will they wait for the appeal?