Re: No Judicial 'Pie-In-Face' for Bill?

[rlande@UBmail.ubalt.edu]

True.  In addition, perhaps Netscape feels the need to link up with
someone with more financial resources than it has in order to have even a
small chance of beating Microsoft.

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, James Love wrote:

> There is another interpretation of NS selling to Sun or Oracle.  If the
> NN is going to be a free client for browsing the web, this benefits
> Microsoft's competitors in the server market, since Microsoft will not
> benefit by a monopoly in client software.
> 
> However, NS has trouble capturing all the benefits, because it is a
> relatively small player in the server market.  Either Sun or Oracle have
> large stakes in a competitive server market.  
> 
> In this sense, the merger would be a good fit.  
> 
>     Jamie
> 
> charles mueller wrote:
> > 
> >         I think Netscape's apparent decision to fold has everything to do
> > with the appeals court, especially the one in Washington but including the
> > others as well.  The firm is a victim of not just Microsoft's tying but also
> > of its predatory pricing (zero, free), both of which are draining its
> > financial lifeblood, and has no chance of getting relief from these
> > anticompetitive practices in the U.S. courts--whether through the efforts of
> > Justice or in a suit of its own.  With an honest judiciary--one that honored
> > the constitutional right to a jury trial for antitrust victims like this
> > Microsoft competitor--Netscape would be able to take care of itself, with or
> > without any help from the Justice Department.
> > 
> >         Charles Mueller, Editor
> >         ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
> >         http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
> > 
> >                                                 ----------------------
> > 
> > At 07:26 PM 2/6/98 -0500, you wrote:
> > >charles mueller wrote:
> > >>
> > >>         The morning papers report that (1) Microsoft has moved its internal
> > >> browser people into the same in-house cubicle with its Windows
> > >> operating-system crew and (2) Netscape is trying to sell out to IBM, Sun,
> > >> Oracle, or the like.  New York Times, 2/6/98, C3, and Miami Herald, 2/6/98,
> > >> C1.
> > >>
> > >>         The first presumably reflects Microsoft's confidence that it's going
> > >> to get a clean bill of health from the U.S. appeals court in Washington in
> > >> April, one that will legalize its 'tying' ('integration') of its
> > >> browser--and all other applications--to its OS. This 2d news
> > >> item--Netscape's preparations to throw in the towel--suggests that it agrees
> > >> with that Microsoft conclusion, i.e., that the appellate court is going to
> > >> give Bill Gates everything he wants, a judicial blessing of his software
> > >> monopoly across the board.
> > >
> > >
> > >    I don't think Netscape's decision has much to do with the appellate
> > >court.  I think it has more to do with the fact that the current case is
> > >only one of a dozen or more ways that MS is seeking to eliminate NN, and
> > >it doesn't see DOJ addressing the other 11.
> > >
> > >    Jamie
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >James Love
> > >Consumer Project on Technology
> > >P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> > >love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
> > >voice 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176
> > >
> 
> -- 
> James Love
> Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
> voice 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176
>