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: John F. Dowd who wrote (18571)	3/22/1999 9:12:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

John, I think Judge Jackson also knows that Microsoft did not appear to be well prepared for the case whereas the DOJ was. Many would fault him for this since he did not allow enough preparation time as some experts have commented. I don't think he wants that can of worms opened up by the appeals court and expose his "incompetence". If the DOJ and states push this case to a judgement, i believe MSFT will win thanks to Judge Jackson. He will want to "save" his respectability and would not care too much about the government's problems in any borderline decision which this will be. That is, the DOJ will be the party filing the appeal or maybe even negotiating after losing. Maybe even his limiting witnesses could become a problem in appeals. The appeals court judges could make him look incompetent. Microsoft could argue that it would have called consumer groups (pro-MSFT of course) showing how MSFT has benefitted them----then there are corporations which have benefitted. Bottom line is that the Judge's decision is more likely to stand up in appeals if he issues a pro-Microsoft judgement whereas an anti-MSFT judgement could lead to embarrassment for him. Furthermore, if he says IE and Windows is not an intregrated product---the appeals court judges will be "offended" since they would be perceived as being "overturned" by a lower court judge. IMO, MSFT should just give the sense that it bargained in good faith and not give up too much at this point. The government will come around just before a ruling is issued by Jackson--ie 11th hour serious bargaining. I think that is Microsoft's stategy anyways. I think if the government sees it this way, they will try for a serious settlement right now but to get all 19 states to agree is almost impossible. Some i feel are just in it for creating bad press for the company under intense lobbying by some competitors. They don't want it end that easily. We will see how it unfolds.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (18571)	3/22/1999 9:42:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Jackson more than anyone wants a settlement as he would not like to be overturned yet again. I doubt that's much of a consideration, but sure, he'd like a settlement just as every judge likes to see a settlement in any civil suit that comes before him. Why? It saves him and his staff a great deal of work -- especially when it's a case as complex as an antitrust case. But would he become more favorably disposed toward Microsoft if they talk but fail to settle? I really doubt it. Why would he favor a defendant when the trial has left their case in shambles? Those were far more than theatrics. Boies managed to weaken the credibility (and thus the "facts") of witness after witness put on the stand by Microsoft. So if Microsoft goes into settlement talks with nothing significant to offer, they will simply look recalcitrant. The judge is just as likely to become even more miffed at them. But will any of that matter? Probably not. I doubt Microsoft will settle before a verdict. I doubt they'll settle even after a strongly negative verdict. No matter how much it costs. No matter how much energy it drains, Microsoft seems prepared to fight this. And maybe there is hope: salonmagazine.com Tripping the antitrust scales How the right helped make the federal courts safe for Microsoft It's not just that the particular court certain to hear any appeal is dominated by conservative Reagan-Bush appointees who look askance at government intervention in the economy -- although that certainly helps. More troubling, say some antitrust experts, is the entire federal judiciary's resistance to aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws -- a reluctance that may in large part be due to the influence of a well-funded campaign to exalt one particular school of legal thought over all others: a discipline known as "law and economics."