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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (22804)	2/28/1999 10:48:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

You mean Microsoft's defense really was just a screw-up, and there was no secret strategy to bamboozle the government and piss off the judge? Drat! ;)

To: Bearded One who wrote (22804)	3/1/1999 2:11:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

From the article you linked to: Now the trial takes a six-week break before resuming for rebuttal witnesses, closing arguments and, according to some people close to the case, possible overtures for negotiating a settlement. Altough I posted a while back about the possibilities of settlement, I would be disappointed if Microsoft settled. The downside, for Microsoft shareholders at least, of either structural or behavioral remedies is, in my view, relatively limited. For starters, they won't be imposed for another five years, at least. Most behavioral remedies would be a slap on the wrist for Microsoft, and structural remedies, though risky, I think would leave shareholders with, at worst, three very strong companies. However, the downside for the economy as a whole of bad economic policy resulting from an unwise settlement of this case will be significant and will grow over time. Although (in fact because) Microsoft's defense was such a disaster, they now have a golden opportunity to litigate this case and, in so doing, take antitrust law in a more libertarian, pro market and antiregulatory direction. So, maybe they should fight it all the way. And they should not try to litigate the case in a way that gets them off but is of no benefit to others. It's better they should go down than have a pyrrhic victory that does nothing to curb governmental intervention in the economy. They should say, "Yes, we are a predatory monopoly. No, we won't challenge any of the judge's factual findings. Here's why, for reasons of the public interest, our conduct, however egregious, should be found not to violate the antitrust laws." So, let them swing for the fences.