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: blankmind who wrote (23109)	5/22/1999 8:31:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

blankmind: Right on again and as usual oh blank one. I thought there were a few points worthy of note. Microsoft attorney John Warden asked, "Are you aware of any documents in AOL's files that suggest it was the DOJ's call as to when AOL would say it had informed the Department of Justice of the proposed Netscape transaction?" Case responded that "that was a ridiculous thing to contemplate." Notice that case did not say yes or no but rather commented on the subject of the question. In other testimony Case suggested that the browser was not what they were after. Why not MSFT should ask. If Case were to say it wasn't worth anything then he has admitted that MSFT had the superior product and by extension that MSFT had not competed unfairly. I mean you can't have it both ways. If the NSCP browser was worth nothing then MSFT did not have to compete unfairly to win market share from NSCP. If on the other hand NSCP had the superior browser then MSFT might have been tempted to cheat but Case underscores the fact that IE was of itself the better product in 2 ways by his testimony and action. 1. He resigned for the IE software and 2. He said that NSCP browser was worth very little to AOL. Therefore the real value in NSCP lay at the server end which has not been the focus of this case. Concerning one of the remedies being pondered,if AOL chose the MSFT browser because it was the best, then why should MSFT supply the inferior browser with their CD containing Win98. It appears that the only barrier to entry into the browser marketplace was NSCP's inability to maintain its market position by improving its browser. Regarding MSFT's gambit to give away the browser, it is not unusual for a company to introduce a product to the public by giving it away-check your local grocery store to verify this. MSFT's real strategy is to get the Client so well distributed that it will make it easier for them to sell the companion Win2K - the server software that talks to this browser. This was the strategy that NSCP has always employed as one could always download the client free whereas the server end software was never given away. The only near legitimate complaint that DOJ might have are those restrictive clauses that MSFT insisted upon in the box maker and ISP contracts. These have all been remedied. Add to this the speed with which the industry is moving and one (even Judge Jackson) must see that he cannot rap his gavel fast enough to keep pace with the dynamics involved here. John JFD