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: ed who wrote (16609)	2/21/1999 4:12:00 PM
From: E. Dita	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Hello everyone What do you think the price of MSFT will be on March 11, the day before the split? post or email me dita@writeme.com Ciao, dita

To: ed who wrote (16609)	2/22/1999 10:11:00 AM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Hold on there Ed.... So, your definition of Monopoly is based on the number of market share , am I right? Yes you are right - a monopoly is purely based on a company's command of marketshare for a technologies. In MSFT's case, they have a clear majority on the OS for Intel-based Personal Computers. So, your logic is if a company had a monopoly ( based on your definition) , the company should not continue to develop new products of improve its current products , am I right ? NO!!! I did not say that at all. A company must (monopoly or no monopoly) continue to develop improvements to their current products. The part you keep dropping is that THEY MUST DO IT WITHIN THE RULES OF THE LAW. For a company that has a monopoly on a technology, they cannot use their monopoly on one technology to advance their marketshare on other technologies that they do not have a monopoly on. This is exactly what MSFT has done. Its as plain as the nose on your face Ed (I hope you have a nose). So STOP YOUT ASSUMPTIONS RIGHT THERE! You are wrong on your assumption already. So , your logic is if a company had monopoly ( BASED ON YOUR DEFINITION) , the company should not grow its market anymore, on the contrary , the company should telll its competitors that just come over to take my free market share , I won't compete anymore . Is it right ? NOPE! That is your understanding of what is happening and it now makes sense why you are so angry obout the DOJ, the trial, the Anti-Trust laws, and our postings. You dont have a clue as to what us on this board and what the DOJ is fighting MSFT about. You think that the DOJ is trying to stop MSFT from advancing its products. All the DOJ and the industry wants is to stop MSFT from illegally leveraging its clear monopoly on the PC Intel OS technology to dominate other technologies in the industry. That is why I did not see any Company in Canada can have any products which will dominate the world market, because it is warfare state, and it did not promote free competition. The regulation from the government is always in play !!!!!!!!!!! I will take the high road (as suggested by someone else on this board) and ignore your completely ignorant insults about my country and not provide a response. Of course these insults are not noted by those that say I verbally abuse posters. Hypocrites By the way, what is the % of market share you will count it as a monopoly ? Do you have any idea ? and why ? I am not sure what you are asking here Ed. MSFT has about a 90%+ marketshare on the Intel PC platform OS technology. Linux, Beos, Caldera, and other Unix alternatives dont even come close. I believe (and I could be wrong on this number) that a monopoly is identified as something like 75% of the marketshare. I might even be as high as 85%. But regardless, MSFT's OSes on the Intel platform are clearly a monopoly. Toy