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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (23003)	2/22/1999 6:46:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 77397

Your "lay opinion" would be an accurate one if that piece is true.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (23003)	2/22/1999 6:48:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 77397

I was shocked by the following: Ken, If you want to use the "Intel inside" label, you buy Intel, if you want the Microsoft label on your software, you comply with softys requirements. If you went to sell using Cisco's label, You comply with Cisco's requirements. Cisco is maintaining architectural control. One thing I have never been able to get the engineer's on this thread to understand is that Cisco owns the IOS and the Architecture! They keep posting articles about somebody else's "whiz-Bang" equipment that is going to knock Cisco off. "Never hoppen, GI!"

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (23003)	2/22/1999 7:10:00 PM
From: denni	Respond to of 77397

all you need is 85% and service providers also get to display a "Cisco Powered Network" logo on their Web sites and in advertisements. that a good deal if you want the logo. should be no problem with the feds.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (23003)	2/22/1999 7:35:00 PM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Kenneth: There is no antitrust problem, IMO, from insisting on 85% Cisco content to get a Cisco Powered Network designation. This is called a tying arrangement. Tying is illegal if you have a monopoly in one product (e.g. Windows) and you "tie" the sale of the product to the sale of another product (e.g., you can't have Windows without buying Explorer). Cisco arguably has a monopoly in its market (the routers or the IOS, etc.) but what is the tied product? There is none. The Cisco Powered Network designation is not a product for sale. I assume Cisco pays companies to be designated "Cisco Powered" (or at least gives it to them for free). And even if Cisco found stupid enough carriers to pay for the privilege to call their networks "Cisco Powered" I would still find it unlikely to be an antitrust problem since there is no market that is being harmed. There is no competitor to "Cisco Powered." Lucent is not out there saying that their sales of "Lucent Lit" sticker sets have been hammered by Cisco. The one thing Cisco cannot do is to say, we won't let you use our IOS or you can't buy our routers unless you also buy our other products. Otherwise affinity programs are perfectly legal, IMO. Doughboy.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (23003)	2/23/1999 12:09:00 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

Ken, that quote was taken out of context. I bet what it actually means is that Cisco won't guarantee complete compatibility and/or service if the network is not 85% Cisco powered. They will still sell them their routers though. It's sort of like you buying a new computer with a warranty, working on the thing yourself and breaking it, and then expecting the warranty to cover it. This type of thing is done in all industries, not just in networking.