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 : CheckFree Holdings Corp. (CKFR), the next Dell, Intel? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brooks Jackson who wrote (2796)	2/23/1999 8:45:00 AM
From: TLindt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20297

>>>and creating bad press that no spin machine can control. Kinda like that monopoly trail going on with the DOJ that has the judge looking at the ceiling and rolling his eyes type of press? Judge Jackson asked with incredulity: ''Ownership means delivering on something you promised?'' When Rosen agreed, the judge rolled his eyes, then threw back his head and stared fixedly at the ceiling while the questioning continued. dailynews.yahoo.com

To: Brooks Jackson who wrote (2796)	2/23/1999 9:25:00 AM
From: Harry Franks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20297

For the difficulty of pay anyone you only have to look to Intuit's attempt to build pay anyone capability a few years ago. I know, I tried it. They sent paper checks to everyone (that is easier to do). The only problem is that when you send paper checks to the largest billers lock boxes (AT&T Universal was especially bad) without stubs attached they are assigned to a slower track -- meaning payments are credited late. And, since they sent them first class mail, Intuit Bill Payment couldn't prove when they sent them (versus when they cleared). Checkfree pays most large billers electronically. Small billers don't have as many problems with paper checks without payment stubs. This will be a tough nut for Transpoint to crack in 5 months. Harry

To: Brooks Jackson who wrote (2796)	2/23/1999 3:43:00 PM
From: TLindt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20297

This is a great trail. dailynews.yahoo.com Tuesday February 23 2:51 PM ET U.S. Says Microsoft Witness Made Up Evidence By David Lawsky WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A government lawyer Tuesday accused a Microsoft manager of making up evidence at the software giant's antitrust trial and eventually forced the witness to retract. The latest blow to Microsoft's defense came in the cross-examination of Dan Rosen, a key witness who was present at critical meeting when, the government alleges, Microsoft issued a threat to rival Netscape. The credibility problems were so acute for Rosen that the judge earlier joked that Microsoft's lawyer was setting out on a ''heroic endeavor'' when he began examining Rosen. The government alleges that Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) holds monopoly power in personal computer operating systems and used it to compete illegally against Netscape Communications Corp. (Nasdaq:NSCP - news) in the market for Web browsers. Rosen was the top Microsoft employee at the June 21, 1995, meeting. The government says Microsoft threatened Netscape at the meeting in an effort to stop it from competing in Web browsers on Windows 95, which came out months later. The latest embarrassment for Microsoft came when Boies tried to find out the first time that Rosen had obtained Netscape's Web browser for Windows 95. ''When did you first have available to you the Netscape Windows 95 browser,'' asked Boies. ''July 1995,'' said Rosen, adding in answer to a further question: ''After the June 21 meeting.'' Boies showed an e-mail Rosen wrote May 11, before the meeting: ''Can I borrow/copy the Netscape Win95 new client they gave us?'' meaning the new Netscape browser. Rosen said he never actually got the browser. He said it was a test version that did not work, which a colleague received at a meeting with Netscape. Boies looked at the witness and said slowly: ''You don't remember that, do you sir? You're just making that up right now.'' ''No, I remember it,'' Rosen insisted. Boies: ''You're sure it was May and not April?'' Rosen: ''Yes.'' Boies then introduced a one-sentence e-mail Rosen wrote on April 27: ''Do you remember who took the Netscape Win95 browser they gave us during our last meeting? I'd like to get a copy.'' There was a moment of silence in the courtroom. Then Rosen said: ''I stand corrected.'' Rosen admitted he himself was at the meeting where the software was handed out. Rosen's credibility problems were underscored earlier when Microsoft lawyer Michael Lacovara -- who is in his 30s -- began his re-examination of Rosen, following a searing government cross-examination one day earlier. ''It's always inspiring to watch young people embark on heroic endeavors,'' said Judge Jackson with a smile. Later in the day, Boies showed Rosen two documents from around the time of the key June 21, 1995 meeting. Boies was trying to establish that Microsoft threatened Netscape in an effort to get it to drop out of the market for Windows 95 Web browser. In one document, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen said in notes allegedly taken during the June 21 meeting: ''Threat that (Microsoft) will own the Win95 client market and that Netscape should stay away.'' The ''Win95 client'' in this case means the Web browser. Rosen wrote to his chief, Bill Gates, a day later, summarizing the meeting and said his top goal was to ''Establish Microsoft ownership of the Internet client platform for Win 95.'' Rosen acknowledged that Microsoft wanted the companies not to compete. But he denied he or others threatened Netscape. It is against antitrust law for two dominant companies to agree not to compete.