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: Bearded One who wrote (21372)	4/23/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: Shea Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Bearded One, You seem to have missed the point of the quote. Let's take the example you cited, conspiracy. Charges of conspiracy hinge on the premise that the conspiracy itself was to commit an illegal act. The article's argument is that at least one component of the DOJ's case, the "predatory pricing" claim, is simply in and of itself an economic theory and that proving that MSFT engaged in such practices does not in and of itself prove that the theory is valid. By proving predatory pricing, the DOJ would not be proving that MSFT engaged in anti-competitive behaviour because there is considerable argument as to whether "predatory pricing" is in fact predatory AT ALL. The point is that it is highly arguable that predatory pricing accomplishes what the DOJ says it does. This is not analogous to criminal conspiracy charges.