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: RTev who wrote (19501)	4/1/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

RTev, "You have a second- or third-rate judge," Gorton said. "I don't know how optimistic I am about Microsoft winning at the district level." [And Gorton is a Republican blasting a Reagan appointee. Whew.] I interpret this as more of a challenge to Judge Jackson to show that he is competent. Gordon has implied that Jackson is incompetent and possibly biased. Now suppose, Jackson rules in favor of MSFT, then he can say to Gordon---"You idiot, I just proved I am competent and am a first rate judge"!!! You are thinking that does not make sense but in the human mind, these kinds of ideas can arise in response to "challenges", believe it or not!

To: RTev who wrote (19501)	4/1/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The judge's decision isn't good news for Microsoft, since he seems to be putting the most pressure on them. I think he is putting more pressure on the government. My reasoning goes like this: -before the trial the DOJ/States were not demanding as much as they are now. They have upped their demands of MSFT due to the trial performance -the judge recognizes this perception by the states.He knows their demand have gone way beyond what was at issue at the start of the case. He knows MSFT will not go along with a radical settlement, meaning no settlement!! -Now he sends the signal that I want a settlement. Obviously means that MSFT is not going to be licensing Windows, selling the code etc.. Remember, in an appeals court his competentency is going to be questioned indirectly in his ability to arrive at the correct decision. -The part about him stating what the facts of the case are is not that bad for MSFT. They did not act on any e-mails that had been discovered.You can't convict based upon thought crime!!!! Even afterwards, MSFT will explain how the laws apply and have jurisprudence on their side. I don't recall the government winning a lot of cases in the modern age. Remember, AT&T broke up prior to a ruling. It makes it hard for Jackson to come up with government winning court cases while is would be easier for Microsoft to cite examples. -We have not even mentioned key term-----"harm to consumers"!!! Conclusion: He is saying stop the nonsense, to the states in particular, and just get on with a reasonable approach to this. In other words, don't count your chickens before they hatch <g> They have not even argued the the anti-trust laws directly, yet.