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: blankmind who wrote (17044)	2/27/1999 4:52:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

I'm a CPA. Not a lawyer. And their lawyer came from a top Wall Street firm. Needless to say, I was shouted down by the lawyer & panel multiple times. My friend was going to kill me. But guess what... my friend won the case It seems this is the pattern for the judges---side with the losing side or appear to. Then "backstab" them---based upon law of course. In my case there was only one judge who made me look stupid along with our lawyers(we represented the government). We won anyways. I think we know from experience that not much should be read into judge Jackson's comment. If he rules for MSFT, he will appear very impartial in any appeal. If he rules against MSFT, it will give the impression that he was biased against them right from the beginning. That is why I think he will make the right decision---the easy decision ---microsoft wins. BTW-I tried sending my comments to MSFT (since they want our opinions--my comments don't register for some reason) Maybe someone else can try and see if the comments can be posted. Thanks and let me know if it works. Here is the site for suggestions. microsoft.com

To: blankmind who wrote (17044)	2/27/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Blankmind, In relation to what we were discussing about how judges are unpredictable. The statements issued by the Microsoft lawyers seem to indicate this understanding. Based upon what I read into their statements, i think it looks pretty good. Remember even if the judge hates MSFT, it is better to give their witnesses a hard time and vent all his frusterations.(just like you and I got s#&$t from our court experiences) When it comes to a decision--he will rule in MSFT's favor. If he was going to rule against MSFT, he would not be so against the company during the trial. SEEMS LIKE A CONTRADICTION BUT IT IS NOT!!!!!!! IMHO. When it time for the decision this summer, i am going to make a big bet in favor of MSFT stock at that time. WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Microsoft Corporation issued the following Transcript by Federal News Service, Washington, D.C.: BILL NEUKOM: Good afternoon. This is a case of marked contrasts. The government has tried to manufacture theatrics in the courtroom to drive the news. Microsoft has built a solid record of evidence pertinent to the applicable law. The government has failed to show any harm to consumers as a result of Microsoft's activity. On the contrary, the record in this trial shows very clearly that Microsoft's drive for innovation has resulted in better products at lower prices for consumers. As to the tying case, the government's own witnesses have admitted that Windows 98 is a single product. You have to have two products to have a tying case, under the court of appeals decision from just last June. Government witnesses, as well as Microsoft witnesses, have testified to the advantages and benefits to end users of having Windows 98 as an integrated operating system. The tying case never got out of the starting blocs. As for the so-called foreclosure case, Netscape itself has come to court and has bragged about its distribution, over 150 million units of its browser technology distributed in a recent 12 month period. The government's so- called exclusionary contract case is dead on arrival. And finally, the 13th hour allegation by the government about discussions between Microsoft and other companies in this industry is going nowhere as well. The record shows plainly that there were no agreements between Microsoft and any of those third parties in question, let alone were there any efforts to implement any of those non-existent agreements. The third phase of the government's case failed from a lack of any evidence whatsoever. Thank you. JOHN WARDEN: A very brief comment, which is you have a lot of suggestions from our brothers at the bar on the other side of this case that they have succeeded in undermining our witnesses or even our clients' credibility. There is an old adage of the bar, when you have the law on your side, you try the law. When you have the facts on your side, you try the facts. When you don't have the law or the facts, you try to try credibility. And that's what I think has driven them to this strategy. We have the law and we have the facts, and at the end of the day credibility hasn't been injured. It doesn't matter in any event. SOURCE Microsoft Corporation /CONTACT: Lisa Fels, 202-956-7668, for Microsoft/ /Web site: microsoft.com (MSFT) newsalert.com*