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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (22814)	3/1/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

It certainly does.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (22814)	3/1/1999 1:59:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Michelle, the trial's been going on for a while, Muglia was the last witness. The judge may well be predisposed at this point, so what? I mean, Microsoft has only been trying to piss him off for a year and a half, I'd say this one slip is understandable. I'd refer you to the transcript Gerald posted here in Message 8067545 for the full context. I'd also refer you to Gerald's response to you on this previously, www2.techstocks.com , who covered it all very well. Not that it's a huge issue or reversible error or anything, but telling the witness to shut up, that he can't explain his answer, to lose his temper, is not exactly the happening thing for the judge to do. That said, Muglia really should not have carried on. It's bad form. Plus, who knows what he might inadvertently say that might be turned against him. If I were his lawyer, I'd be reading him (and a few others) the riot act right now for this whole God-awful defense -- unless of course they deliberately did it on purpose, in which case I don't know whether to call them geniuses or stark, raving mad. Gerald's not a big fan of Microsoft, but by all appearances, he's not a big fan of antitrust enforcement at this point either. And unlike your other respondent, he's a lawyer and has posted knowlegdeably about legal matters here before. Cheers, Dan.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (22814)	3/1/1999 2:01:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I would say denying the obvious over and over makes successful appeal less likely. Remember, this is the sweetheart judge for MSFT. The one who was appointed to be more 'reasonable' after the original judge was dismissed for criticizing MSFT and wanting to go beyond the velvet gloves original consent decree. Now they have tried to make a fool of him. They have convinced not just one but two judges that they are sitting in the court room giving testimony the judges obviously find incredible. It is exactly this behaviour that the appeals court will have a hard time with, however tame and politically motivated they may be. (I imagine losing the Sun case will have a side effect here regarding the credibility of that email witness as well.) Judges also have a lot of latitude. And the witness ignored instructions to stop testifying on matters the judge was not questioning him on. I think another way of looking at judicial strictness and leniency here is that nobody is getting tried for perjury on either side. Yet. It is exactly this dissembling, rationalizing, and foot dragging that makes the case for breakup rather than other remedies. They managed to skirt the spirit of the original consent decree, and now they won't even try to look honest in court. Maybe they don't know what looking honest, or giving a candid answer, is like. Probably comes from years of stored up arrogance from just being MSFT. Being really really rich means the emperor has clothes even if apparently butt-naked, right? This judge is like the little boy who just points out that the emperor appears to be naked, and insists on that point, even though the emperor's vizer keeps arguing that he is dressed in the finest silks, cloth beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, invisible only to the retarded. This could all be part of a strategy that views only two outcomes as good: Total victory in court with no restrictions and the benefits that implies, or mandated breakup with all of the benefits that alternative implies. No half measures would be welcomed by MSFT, So why not deny the obvious? In that case, if true, both intelligence and arrogance are at work. Chaz