posted 05-01-2000 10:06 AM         

---

Yeah, what he said.

Dude, here is the link, though you need a subscription (that's why I didn't post it the first time).
Seymour

While we are at it (if you get that free trial), here's Cramer's latest. It's a good description on why the stock price has fallen (because of analysts, not the Justice Department), it is clear he is also against the breakup, like Dude assumed.
Cramer

And finally, here's an article that compares the Microsoft breakup to Standard Oil and AT&T and the difference between the three.
Comparing to other monopolies

posted 05-01-2000 09:52 AM         

---

I'll throw my hat into the ring and see how I do: Dude, the coupling of the operating system with the browser was EXACTLY the problem, though you seem to think differently. The whole case came from Netscape, who charged that a user could not delete IE from their computers because it was coupled with the operating system. These facts are irrefutable.

Second, I don't believe that Gates wanted Mcirosoft broken up, but I do buy alot of the argument that says it could be positive for Microsoft. Your points:
1. Why MUST people who favor this argument make this assumption? I think people are assuming the the management team DOES know what's in their best interests. It's very naive and somewhat close-minded to believe that the only possible benefit for Microsoft is to stay together. It HAS been proven time and time again that breaking up monopolies benefits business and the economy.
2. The whole point is that through decoupling, MSFT unfairly gained advantage that created an anticompetitive environment. Sure, standards were created, but a legitimate consumer choice was lacking. But soon, MSFT has gotten too a point where many believe it is too big to remain an innovator and agent of growth and change. Ten years ago, it didn't have this problem. Now it does, and breaking up Microsoft can allow the two businesses to find these things again.
3. None of the smaller ones are monopolies or too big for growth and efficiency, and therefore have no reason to be broken up.

Dude, I'm guessing you are a shareholder, given your obvious passion and confidence about this issue. But beware the pitfalls of a closed-mind, it might come back to bite you in the bum. Or you will be proven right in the end, and you can laugh all the way to the bank.

posted 04-28-2000 05:46 PM         

---

Here we go again, indeed. I've given up trying to persuade you that your claims that Gates wants MSFT broken up and that a breakup would be the best thing for MSFT are wrong, but I guess I should keep arguing my point so that other Investorville readers don't fall into the same trap. Could you post a link to what this cat Seymour said, so I can check it out and respond to it? In the meantime, the best I can do is to say that if one accepts the premise that a breakup is the best thing for Microsoft, one must also conclude both that (1) Microsoft management doesn't know what's in its best interest (or as gatsby and some conspiracy theorists have claimed, Gates actually does want MSFT broken up); and that (2) the case against Microsoft, i.e. that it is unfairly benefiting from its position, is without merit (after all, if the operating system and the web browser would both be better off decoupled, then how is Microsoft unfairly taking advantage of its current position?); and that (3) all these tech startups that fear Microsoft's power and want the company to be broken up so they can better compete must be deluded. As Cramer would say: Wrong!

> the problem all along was MSFT coupling Windows with IE.
Really? Operating systems continue to add new features all the time... why is the ability to display a web page so different from the hundreds of other OS enhancements Windows has undergone that a single piece of software should not control both the operating system and web page display? The case was more about Microsoft's ability to leverage an existing monopoly to capture a leadership position in another market, not about whether operating systems and web browsers should be integrated. (And once a person understands this, it's only a very short leap to understanding why Microsoft is worth much more as a single company than broken up.)

posted 04-28-2000 05:25 PM         

---

Well, here we go again. A breakup - one with Office and IE, and the other with Windows. This makes a lot more sense then throwing either IE or Windows to the open-source masses. This breakup would provide a satisfactory punishment, as the problem all along was MSFT coupling Windows with IE. Now, they can be developed on two seperate tracks, and both can remain the high standards that they have been to date.

I also just read a column from Seymour who agrees with me that a MSFT breakup, especially the proposed one, would benefit shareholders and management. Almost a 1 + 1 = 3 scenario. I know many people disagree, but if this actually happens, don't be surprised 5 years from now when it benefits every single person involved (including consumers).

posted 04-25-2000 06:53 PM         

---

White House lawyers and economic advisers asked "clarifying questions" today of Justice Department antitrust attorneys at a briefing on the government's proposal to break Microsoft (MSFT) into separate companies. (source: Washington Post) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12767-2000Apr25.html

In brief:
- Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer said that he was confident the software giant would eventually win the U.S. government's antitrust case against it and that the company would not be broken up.

posted 04-25-2000 03:05 PM         

---

This article is from a buy who thinks the "leaks" were purposeful to see what the reaction would be.

He makes a good argument actually, whether you agree with him or not. http://www.upside.com/Richard_Brandt/3904d3fc0.html

posted 04-25-2000 09:59 AM         

---

Worth magazine ranked Steve Ballmer #3 on its list of top CEOs. Here's what they said:

"The sea-change at microsoft is summed up in Steve Ballmer's CORPORATE GOAL: "Empowering people through great software, anytime, any place, and on any device." Did you catch that part about "any device"? The personal computer made Microsoft a legendary earnings machine. But computing is moving off the desktop and onto the Internet via telephones, TVs, personal digital assistants, and other devices. Ballmer's on a mission to make Windows just as ubiquitous. Typical of Microsoft's thrust is an initiative called Next Generation Windows Services, which will allow Web sites and devices run by various flavors of Windows to talk to each other. WHAT'S NEXT: In January, Bill Gates, who was No. 4 on last year's list, named himself chief software architect and officially shifted his CEO responsibilities to Ballmer, his closest friend since their Harvard days in the mid-1970s. Gates began Microsoft's transition to an Internet company. Ballmer's job is to follow through. It's hard to overstate the size of the task: Microsoft's monopoly on operating system software enabled it to rake in huge profits while Gates & Co. dictated the agenda for the computer industry. But on the Internet, the company looks surprisingly vulnerable. Ballmer wants consumers to think of Microsoft when they think of the Internet. But their first thought may be AOL Time Warner instead. And the Linux operating system is rapidly gaining an enthusiastic following, threatening Microsoft's drive to make Windows the lingua franca of the Web. But Microsoft is hardly without resources. Microsoft Network is the Web's third-most-popular portal behind AOL and Yahoo, the company's Hotmail E-mail program is a leader in freebies, and Internet Explorer owns the browser market. Of course, if an attractive acquisition candidate comes down the pike, Microsoft has the perfect currency to do a deal: its own stock, with an aggregate market value of around $500 billion. Microsoft's valuation is a reflection of its amazing growth record. Revenue in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999, grew 29 percent to $19.75 billion, and earnings per share rose 69 percent to $1.42. HEADACHES: There's the little matter of a federal antitrust suit. But the market doesn't seem to think there's much possibility of a government-ordered breakup of the company. Ballmer is a ferocious negotiator (Staples CEO Thomas Stemberg, No. 45 on this list, calls him "an animal"), and analysts and shareholders seem confident he'll cut a good deal with the Justice Department. PASSIONS: Like archrival Scott McNealy, Ballmer is the father of three young boys (who call Gates "Uncle Bill."). When he's not on the road, he's usually home in time for dinner with the family. Most mornings, he drives his eight-year-old to school. Also like McNealy, Ballmer is a jock. He plays basketball once a week at work and is a big fan of the Seattle Sonics and the Detroit Pistons. FINANCIAL REWARD: 239,626,854 Microsoft shares. 'Nuff said."

All times are EST (US)