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: t2 who wrote (19097)	3/28/1999 7:58:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I do not think that Jackson would deliver a verdict without considering how appeals court would deal with it. Whatever his decision is, he'd write it (or, rather, he'd have his staff write it) very carefully, knowing that it would be reviewed closely by the appeals court. But Jackson would also know that either a pro- or anti-MS decision might be overturned. There are judges on the Circuit Court who are inclined to vote against anti-trust judgments. There are also judges inclined to vote for them. He has no way to know which ones will be looking at his decision, so all he can do is be careful to follow the law and the evidence. Neither one of those seem to favor Microsoft at this point. Jackson is a Reagan appointee who's probably harder to convince in an antitrust case than another judge might be, but once he's convinced his ego will tell him that he must make the decision. That's his job. He'll let the appeals court do theirs.

To: t2 who wrote (19097)	3/28/1999 8:49:00 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Mr. tech2000, . I also believe them in that the government has not proven harm to consumers which is the key element to the case. I was reading an article from an anit-trust professor in an Ivy league school that said the government has done well in the courtroom but failed to prove harm to the consumer. He said that the government witness economist admitted that Microsoft has not abused their position but that there is the "possibility of abuse in the future". The professor also said that the government economist has somewhat admitted that Windows has provide a base from which developer could develop their product at a reduced cost to the consumer. The developer only has to focus on one platform not many of them. Thank You JK