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: John F. Dowd who wrote (23499)	6/1/1999 4:55:00 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The Appeals Court will throw out any decision and remedy involving the above points so fast it will make Jackson's head spin. Maybe that is why Judge Jackson is giving the government hints about not asking for too much in settlement talks. He is not going to put his own neck (and credibility) on the line with a radical remedy. I think he is well aware that some of his decision early in the case appear to have been biased against the company. After all who wants to look stupid in the eyes of higher courts? Secondly, the fact that the appeals court overruled him on the Windows95 injuction would also make him somewhat reluctant. Who knows, he could actually rule in favor of MSFT taking the Windows95 ruling as a key factor in his decision. Conclusion: He may be saying that the government could only hope for a token win in the case if left to a final verdict. Take what you can get fellows while the heat is on Bill Gates!!! Judges also have a tendency to appear biased against a party during the trial but rule against them in the end. If the DOJ/States are not careful, they could screw up the whole thing.

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (23499)	6/1/1999 5:08:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The government has no case and that is why Jackson didn't want to see the case back in his court. If they had no case, it would never have gotten this far. Jackson did not want to see it back in his court because there is a case -- a good one -- on both sides. Even though I disagree with them, I understand the ideological objection to antitrust in general, but I don't think such objections help us understand this trial or the potential impact on Microsoft and its stock. You're right that the ideological divide could become significant in the largely conservative DC circuit court. But we must also credit Jackson with astute management of this case, setting up its end game in such a way that his decision -- whatever it is -- will better withstand scrutiny by the appeals court. We'll see better summaries and actual transcripts in the days to come, but here's an early summation of Fisher's testimony today in which he restates the fundamental charges: seattletimes.com "Microsoft's customers do not believe they have serious competitive alternatives to Windows," Fisher said. "Microsoft has substantial and varying ability to raise prices without fearing that customers are going to turn elsewhere." The customers Fisher referred to are major computer makers such as Compaq, Dell and IBM. ... "Microsoft has plainly taken actions which only makes sense if they have a monopoly to protect." Among those actions - which the Department of Justice and 19 states allege are illegal - is putting software for browsing the Internet into the operating system and cutting exclusive deals with Internet companies to secure prominence for the browser, Internet Explorer.