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: J Krnjeu who wrote (17012)	2/27/1999 9:08:00 AM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Win98 code is an intellectual property subject to the protection of the copy right laws. If MSFT is forced to open up the code what is to stop a drug company from being forced to open up the formula to competitors. Basically, a drug company has a monopoly in that drug for years so it can pay for research and have a profit. I think an 'open code' ruling will have far reaching effects. Mr. J Krnjeu, You made some good points. That is why the open code solution won't fly. I am betting MSFT will be winning this case as Windows is not a commodity that the company has, it is intellectual property. Why don't governments go after drug companies to force them to lower prices on monopoly products? They would state that drugs always face potential competitors eventually. However, MSFT only had the dominant O/S since early 90s. Therefore, it is too early to determine whether a successfull competitive product is around the corner. A 20 year monopoly might be a good case for the government but not this one. That leads me to another point. Why don't drug companies face lawsuits in this area of overcharging customers? Who determines if there is overcharging? BTW-I still believe that as the MSFT lawyers stated , the law is on their side.

To: J Krnjeu who wrote (17012)	2/27/1999 11:36:00 AM
From: taxman	Respond to of 74651

"I have no knowledge of that," Kempin said. is he a liar? regards ---Zacks Newsbytes <prnews@zacks.com> wrote: > > WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1999 FEB 26 (NB) -- By Rajiv > Chandrasekaran, Special to Newsbytes. Microsoft Corp. [NASDAQ:MSFT] > representatives repeatedly told personal computer maker Gateway 2000 > Inc. [NYSE:GWY] that its decision to distribute non-Microsoft > Internet software created a "serious" issue that could "affect our > working relationship," Gateway told the Justice Department in a 1997 > document that was introduced yesterday at the Microsoft antitrust > trial. > > The document is the first evidence presented by the government > suggesting that Microsoft directly strong-armed a computer maker to > stop it from offering Internet browsers made by Netscape > Communications Corp. [NASDAQ:NSCP]. > > Until yesterday, government attorneys had only argued that the > software giant employed indirect tactics, such as requiring that > Microsoft's browser be highlighted in certain ways or limiting the > promotion of Netscape's product during a computer's process. > > Confronted on the witness stand with the document yesterday, Joachim > Kempin, Microsoft's senior vice president in charge of sales to > computer makers, said he was "at a loss" to explain Gateway's > statements. Microsoft has long maintained that it has done nothing to > prevent PC makers from installing rival browsers. > > Before government attorney David Boies could pose a follow-up > question, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who appeared > intrigued with the document, interjected his own series of questions. > > "Are you saying that never happened?" Jackson asked Kempin. "No > Microsoft representative to your knowledge ever said such a thing to > Gateway?" > > "I have no knowledge of that," Kempin said. "I believe if that had > happened, I would have gotten a phone call" from Gateway. > > The document, which was written by Gateway in response to a subpoena > from the Justice Department, also stated that Microsoft > representatives "strenuously objected" when Gateway decided to > distribute Netscape's browser to its employees for internal use. > > Despite Microsoft's complaints, Gateway elected to continue internal > use of the Netscape browser, a point that Microsoft attorneys contend > disproves the government claim that Microsoft has great power with > its customers. Gateway also did not stop installing the Netscape > product on machines it sold, according to documents released earlier > in the trial. > > An economist hired by the government asserted last month that Gateway > pays higher prices to license copies of Windows than Compaq Computer > Corp. [NYSE:CPQ] and Dell Computer Corp. [NASDAQ:DELL], two firms > that have not aggressively promoted the Netscape browser. Microsoft > maintains that the lower prices for Dell and Compaq, the two largest > PC makers, are the result of volume discounts and are unrelated to > browser promotion. > > With Jackson insistent that the trial wrap up today with the > questioning of Microsoft's final witness, Boies was forced to rush > through his interrogation of Kempin, often posing just a few > questions on a topic before moving onto a different subject. > > Among the documents presented by Boies was an excerpt of Kempin's > pretrial deposition, which Boies apparently felt lent support to the > government's contention that Microsoft has a monopoly with Windows. > Kempin testified that he set the price for Windows without giving > consideration to other operating systems on the market, which he > called "inferior type products." > > Earlier in the day, Jackson challenged Kempin's assertion that > consumers seek out Internet browsers they like -- often getting a > copy over the Internet -- instead of automatically using Microsoft's. > > "You seemed very reluctant to give us any statistic a few minutes > ago," Jackson said, referring to a statement from Kempin that he > could not specify how many browsers were distributed through PC makers > last year. "Now you're telling me you disagree with this information. > Based on what? Word of mouth?" > > Kempin then said his analysis was "totally anecdotal." > > At issue was an internal Microsoft marketing study that listed the > primary reason consumers use Microsoft's browser is because "it came > with my computer." > > Kempin also spent part of the day defending Microsoft's restrictions > on the way PC makers can alter the series of screens a user sees when > turning on a computer for the first time, arguing that the software > giant is trying to prevent the "butchering" of Windows. He said > allowing PC makers to alter Windows would be akin to letting a > bookseller rip out the first chapter of "Moby Dick." > > "We can let the end user rip out the first chapter and burn it," > Kempin said. "But what we allow end users is not what we should allow > distributors." > > Reported by Newsbytes News Network, newsbytes.com . > > >