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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22849)	3/2/1999 8:51:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

And the winner is... mercurycenter.com Meanwhile, a return for the moment to our regularly scheduled coverage. Rich Gray is not totally impressed by the government's case at this point, despite rather than because of Microsoft's awesome defense, of course. Perhaps you could comment on this bit at the end. The government could lose on each of these three individual claims, which are brought under section 1 of the Sherman Act, and still win. The government argues, and Judge Jackson agrees, that even if it can't win all or any of these section 1 claims, the evidence on each of these issues can still be relied on by Judge Jackson to support a finding that Microsoft has engaged in illegal maintenance of its operating system monopoly under section 2 of the Sherman Act. As Judge Jackson put it, "a monopolist's conduct that does not rise to the level of a section 1 violation may nevertheless violate section 2 if it "impair[s] competition in an unnecessarily restrictive way." The evidence that Microsoft feared Netscape's browser technology as a potential threat to Windows is powerful support for the argument that Microsoft's efforts in the browser area were undertaken, at least in part, to protect Windows. At this stage, while it appears that Microsoft will probably win some key battles, it is likely that it will lose the war. The key remaining -- and still very much open -- question is what punishment will be imposed on Microsoft as a result. Also from Gray in the SJmercury: Hot Button: If I were Microsoft's attorney mercurycenter.com I'd just want to roll over and die? Not exactly, Gray is fairly sanguine about Microsoft's case, despite the miscues. As were the pieces I posted from the NYT this weekend, www2.techstocks.com and nytimes.com . Cheers, Dan. P.S. sorry for the unscheduled interruption with the esteemed Mr. Vaughn. I thought I walked away from the political cesspool, but to paraphrase the old Doors song, nobody gets out of there alive. I apologize for following Mr. Vaughn onto this thread.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22849)	3/3/1999 7:45:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Gerry says, lawyerlike: "You must choose a or b, you must choose a or b, you must choose a or b." (Please refer to previous msg link, folks, if this confuses you.) Chaz says: Don't present me with your typical lawyer's false dichotomies, Gerry. Only people with guns to my head can get away with that, and you don't have one. Your recent emails lead me to wonder if you are now employed in some way by Microsoft, perhaps professionally? Are you? Because in any other context your last letter is ridiculous. Don't tell me you're just mad about me forseeing the current situation better than you did! Admit I'm speculating, label it clearly, or provide my sources? Ahhahahaha! Untwist your panties, Gerry. I think they're in a bunch. What the hell kind of board do you think we are posting on? This is not the Nitpickers Association Picnic, it's good old SI. Chaz