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 (21625)	4/27/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Bearded One - as a MSFT bull, I hate to say this, but your analysis is spot on. The in house lawyers having such a prominent role was a huge, huge blunder IMO. These guys are so incompetent, it was a disaster - OTOH, their task was not enviable. Still, better lawyers would have formulated a more coherent strategy, been better prepared, and kept better control of their witnesses. I'm afraid MSFT has bought it, as far as the trial goes. But in the long, long perspective, I actually see the trial as a positive for MSFT (forces them to be more dynamic, instead of stagnating as a monopoly - I wrote some posts here along those lines). Short term, it's not going to be pretty as the spectacle unfolds.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21625)	4/27/1999 2:47:00 AM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Separating the rulings means that Jackson is giving the parties more time to settle. It's been clear all along that there was little chance they'd settle at this point in the trial. Jackson no doubt recognizes that. So, through this bifurcated ruling, he adds in extra time for settlement. 1. the fact that Jackson is separating the rulings means that he is going to rule against you. Yeah. Probably. At the very least it means that he believes that at least some of the lawyers in the case don't really understand how things are going in the case. The bifurcation will allow both sides to hone in on the two aspects. His factual decision will telegraph the legal decision, making settlement likely. It will also protect his ruling on appeal. 2. Jackson will simply discount countervailing testimony by your executives as not credible. I suspect that he'll be much more subtle than that. He'll grant some of the points made by Microsoft, but not many. 3. blame your lawyer No. No... the way to do it on this thread is to blame a socialist conspiracy of the press and White House and to await the day when a brave new world arises dedicated to the sophomoric philosophical rantings of a third-rate science fiction novelist.

To: Bearded One who wrote (21625)	4/27/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: Shea Jones	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Bearded One, I agree with you broadly, but I think that some of your arguments are based on faulty premises. While it is clear, as you point out, that Jackson's rulings on the facts means that MSFT is going to lose some of those points, I think it's also clear that Jackson's intention is to get both sides to settle. He doesn't want to rule on this case, and if he's forced to, he wants to ensure that this ruling, which will likely define his career, is beyond reproach. So he goes this route, intending to upset both sides with his findings of fact, pushing them towards settlement, and if that fails, he's set the stage for their arguments to be tailored towards HIS VIEW of the facts, going a long way towards helping his ruling withstand withering legal analysis in the media at least, and an appeals process at best. I also disagree that there is no winning on points. Especially given the media spin of events, most of the public expects MSFT to lose at this point. A ruling that strikes a blow to the DOJ's case on any significant level is going to therefore be reported as a win for MSFT. The key of course, is in the remedies. 3) The correct thing to do when you lose a big case is to blame your lawyer 100% agreed! Shea