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: Thure Meyer who wrote (22671)	2/14/1999 6:53:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Thure, this goes back to something we all discussed on this thread many moons ago. At the time, the conventional wisdom was to split Microsoft into an OS company and a separate applications company and to prohibit each from entering the business of the other. These various proposals all suffer, however, from the serious disadvantage that they require ongoing governmental oversight and intervention in areas of technology and law which are, to say the least, murky. I, and I think a few others on this thread, came up with what is really a rather obvious response to these problems: if you are going to have some sort of remedy, such as a split-up of Microsoft, why not divide it into 3 or five or seven or (you pick the number you want) separate companies, each of which gets an equal share of Microsoft's assets, has full rights to all of Microsoft's intellectual property, and can do whatever it wants to make a living for its employees and money for its shareholders? I still think this is the best way to resolve the antitrust suit. I even suggested that Microsoft might want to preempt the government and do a split on its own. Needless to say, that proposal has not been adopted. ;) Some have objected that it would be impossible for the "Baby Bills," as the media has come to call the prospective spinoffs, to survive because they would have no competitive or proprietary advantage against the others. They would just drive each other into the ground, so the scenario goes, a possibility no doubt alluring to McNealy and others in the Netscape camp who evidently came up with the same idea. I personally no not think that would happen. I think the spinoffs would specialize, each going in a different direction, though sharing the Windows code base. I think at least some might eventually establish their own franchises someday, in areas we cannot predict today. Then there is the objection that no one at Microsoft would ever want to work for anyone other than Bill Gates. Unless Bill Gates retires, I think this may be a problem, but I would think that Bill would have the smarts not to make joining a company a loyalty test, and, at some point, the prospect of significant gain will, I think, outweigh loyalty. If worse came to worst, one disaffected employee could take charge of each of the non-Bill spinoffs and hire entire new staffs. That would satisfy the needs of antitrust and might even solve some of Microsoft's labor problems in the bargain. ;)

To: Thure Meyer who wrote (22671)	2/15/1999 6:44:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

<< 2) The MS distributed computing initiative (i.e., DCOM, etc.) will tank since the mutually reinforcing MS imperative will no longer exist. This will also clear the way for, CORBA, JAVA, JAVA Beans, Enterprise Java Beans, and the use of the http data stream for application services. I foresee MS failing miserably in Internet space. >> Yes. All of the OLE descended stuff will die horribly without the monopoly power (and motivations for creating it in the first place.) Mostly to the good, but lots of pain for lots of MSFT loyalists in the meantime. Think of the book returns alone! And all that training time wasted. Chaz