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: TheRainmaker who wrote (22928)	3/8/1999 4:16:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

In fairness to Intel, the scope of the complaint is much narrower than it is against Microsoft. Now that the evidence in the Microsoft case has been presented and the witnesses on both sides cross-examined, the Department of Justice seems to have been largely vindicated in its action (see article). What has been most striking is that the pattern of “exclusionary and predatory” business practices that the government set out to expose was established as much by Microsoft as by the government's witnesses. An amazing trail of e-mails and management papers has depicted a company ready, it seems, to do almost anything to protect its Windows monopoly and lacking any sense of that “special lens” through which the law examines the actions of a monopolist. Even more damning has been the evasiveness and lack of credibility under questioning of one Microsoft executive after another, from Bill Gates downwards. When, as in the Microsoft case, a monopolist's conduct seems to be chilling innovation in markets in which the competition is largely defined by innovation, the argument for antitrust intervention is compelling. Indeed, antitrust enforcement will be needed to stop such practices even before any demonstrable consumer harm has occurred. This is not easy for the courts to deal with; devising appropriate remedies will no doubt prove just as hard. In the face of these difficulties, “hands off” undoubtedly has an appealing simplicity—but thus far, the Microsoft case has shown convincingly that it is not the right option. economist.com./editorial/freeforall/microsoft_case/ld5337.html Maybe you should forward your entirely credible rumor to The Economist, that scurilous commie rag that used to be Bill's favorite, before he invented a different form of communism to embrace poor Slivka's "free software" proposal. Or maybe this is just another of those "brainstem technical issues" you referred to in your last post here? Cheers, Dan.