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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Martin who wrote (16441)	2/19/1999 12:01:00 AM
From: blankmind	Respond to of 74651

- I don't know about anyone else, but going after MSFT is actually sending chills down my spine - Our Gov't is going after a household company for purely partisan reasons; the American people are clearly against Janet Reno; and why don't they just stop tnis once & for all?

To: Lee Martin who wrote (16441)	2/19/1999 2:26:00 AM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

My dictionary defines a monopoly as "a company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity". Unfortunately, this is a legal proceeding and not an essay, so the dictionary definition really doesn't matter much. The legal definition of monopoly is far more precise and nuanced. The professor who served as DOJ expert argues here that MS does have a monopoly in the desktop OS market: usdoj.gov [the link above is an Acrobat file] The professor who served as Microsoft expert argues here that MS does not have a monopoly in the desktop OS market: washingtonpost.com As you can see, neither depends on the dictionary definition. You're right that the government must show that Microsoft has a monopoly in the relevant market. And, as the DOJ expert points out, and as you point out, there's nothing wrong with the business pratices MS is alleged to have persued unless MS had a monopoly.