Re: Microsoft Cleared In Conn. Of Antitrust Violations

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:57:50 -0400, Mitch Stone wrote:

>>I've said all along that Bristol should have expected this treatement from
>>Microsoft when they cooked up their original deal, and were foolish not to.
>>However, I STILL object to the Microsoft argument those who sue them are 
>>merely
>>envious of their wealth and trying to grab a piece for themselves.  
>>Bristol may
>>have given them the opening with this poorly conceived legal case.  
>>Microsoft's
>>defense is no less offensive because of it - and - mark my words - the same
>>argument will be made against Caldera in their suit.
>
>Perhaps, but I keep asking myself a selfish question: what does it matter 
>to me anyway? Even if Bristol had won a large cash settlement from 
>Microsoft, how does that affect the market for competing products? Not 
>one bit. This is especially the case with the Caldera suit -- a battle 
>over a long-obsolete product. Unless you believe that Microsoft, once 
>bitten, is twice shy, then the outcomes of these antitrust suits are 
>anticlimaxes to non-events.


     You're right Mitch, no single action is going to become a 'silver
bullet' against M$.  But don't be too quick to dismiss the value of the
cumulative effect all these suits could have on M$.  Any loss for M$
will only open the door to even more antitrust suits against them, and
the more they lose the easier it will be for the next.  But like you I
also believe that if this fight is to ever be won it's going to have to
be won on the consumer level, and if nothing else everything
surrounding all these suits has been a real PR nightmare for M$.  I
agree it's only a start, but it's gotta start somewhere.

--
 ...Cheers,

 ...Norm

***********************************************
* Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
* For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
* with "send pub_key" in the subject          *
***********************************************