Microsoft (MSFT) - Investorville

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

Investorville

Microsoft (MSFT) (Page 20)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

This topic is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Microsoft (MSFT)
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator	posted 12-03-1999 06:09 PM The Justice Department hired a financial consulting company to advise it on remedies it might seek in its antitrust case against Microsoft. http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/080493.htm
Joey Joe Joe	posted 11-30-1999 02:11 PM dude, it seems that despite your meticulous reading of my post (through which you caught by egregious 'of' spelling error ), you somehow missed my entire second paragraph where I clearly state that I agree with your opinion regarding Microsoft! It is not 'my claim' as you say, and I clearly say how I feel Gates would have chosen a different route had he wanted to break up the giant. MaxPower - close...I was trying to stress the 'because it is so' side of the comparison, the phrase you always hear creationists say without any reasoning (and that I've heard MSFT 'whole' backers say as well). Machiavelli - great image.
MaxPower	posted 11-30-1999 12:14 PM Again, dude, not that you necessarily have to offer any backing to an argument you make (we are all, after all, entitled to our own opinions), but the only reason you offer for your belief that MSFT is worth more than the whole is the synergies between company's businesses...couldn't these synergies remain even in the face of a breakup? In fact, I would guess that the decreased inefficiencies, decreased bureaucracy, and decreased need to remain focused on an overall MSFT goal resulting from a breakup would actually improve the synergies. I still have not heard a single argument that explains why a whole MSFT would be better. Of course it doesn't mean it's not the case, but I would still love to read the argument if one exists. And though he's making an extreme comparison, i'm guessing that JJJ's connection between the two arguments is one of ignoring a 'probable reality' in favor of an 'improbable one' - though in evolution, the probable/improbably distinction is clear, yet in the MSFT case, it of course is not. And by agreeing with you anyway, it seems JJJ is recognizing this difference as well. Am I correct in my assessment JJJ?
dude	posted 11-30-1999 11:21 AM JJJ, I must be missing something. I don't see any parallels between my line of reasoning and creationism, nor do I see "miles and miles off (sic) irrefutable proof and logic" to support your claim that Bill Gates wants MSFT broken up. As you seem unable to steer me back to reality, I guess I'll just stay here in my imaginary world, a world in which MSFT is more valuable as a single body than as a collection of body parts...
Machiavelli	posted 11-30-1999 09:58 AM There was a great cartoon in the paper over the weekend. It was a caricature of Bill Gates, and surrounding him were 15 little versions of the man that each looked like him. And the caption read: "Be careful what you wish for." Awesome.
Joey Joe Joe	posted 11-24-1999 09:38 AM You know dude, i've heard a similar argument to yours...from the creationists! These are the people that seemingly ignore miles and miles off irrefutable proof and logic to the contrary of creationism, yet their argument is simply 'because it is so.' Though anyway, I do now happen to agree with you. Whether or not Gates thinks a breakup is good or bad for MSFT, there are other ways of going about such a breakup, and a lengthy and costly trial isn't one of them. He was probably looking for a settlement all along anyway that would validate as best as it could MSFT's current status quo.
belgarion	posted 11-24-1999 09:14 AM dude, i'm not saying you are wrong or right here (cause I don't know the answer myself), but why do you say that MSFT is worth more as a whole than as a sum of the parts? I think at the very least, from the shareholders perspective, I would guess that owning a percentage in each of five smaller MSFT's would be worth more in the long run than the same percentage in one MSFT. And to use the requisite example of a business being worth less than its parts, just look to AT&T 15 years ago...why is MSFT different in your eyes?
dude	posted 11-23-1999 06:08 PM > dude, assure us with some proof to > the contrary of the 'conspiracy' Since when must non-conspiracy theorists provide proof that a conspiracy does not exist? The burden of proof is on the side of the conspiracy theorists. I don't believe the government is hiding evidence that aliens crash landed in Roswell in 1947, but I can't prove that it didn't happen either. The only evidence I can offer that Gates does not want Microsoft broken up is this syllogism: 1. Microsoft is worth MUCH MUCH more as a single company than as separate units. (In fact, this is why they're in court, because the company is (fairly or unfairly) exploiting the unbelievably huge synergies between its product lines.) 2. Bill Gates wants to do what's best for Microsoft. 3. Bill Gates understands what's best for Microsoft. Therefore, 4. Bill Gates does not want Microsoft broken up. You may not believe one or more of the first three statements, in which case you wouldn't have to accept the conclusion. But I am virtually certain of them.
MaxPower	posted 11-22-1999 11:05 AM dude, like smario, I would love to hear your thoughts. I do not pretend to know what Bill Gates is thinking. But the only thing we as investors can do is make judgments based on the available information, and by following the logic of given events. And by following the actions of MSFT and resultant chain of events during the trial, the logic clearly points to the theory that Gates wants MSFT broken up. However, i am not close-minded and of course it 'may' not be true...it is after all just a theory, and I will be very receptive to any 'proof to the contrary'. I just haven't seen or heard any yet.
smario	posted 11-22-1999 09:45 AM dude, assure us with some proof to the contrary of the 'conspiracy'. I'm interested in hearing your reasons for being so certain. Do you have some inside info that you can share?
dude	posted 11-19-1999 06:24 PM "A new collection of "Baby Bills" would, at least going into the game, still control the desktop operating system, the desktop Internet browser, and the standard desktop productivity suite." This statement is certainly true, but it doesn't support the theory that Gates wants Microsoft broken up, and indeed the phrase "going into the game" acknowledges that the independent companies might not be able to retain their monopolies indefinitely. I can assure all you conspiracy theorists out there that Gates definitely does NOT want Microsoft broken up.
JHirsch	posted 11-19-1999 12:14 PM gatsby, Looks like someone out there agree with your theory about Gates wanting to break up Microsoft... Here's a quote form the Red Herring "My favorite Microsoft conspiracy theory is that Bill Gates et al. actually wants to split the company into pieces. Since the majority of Microsoft's legacy competitors have already been squashed (with the major exception of Apple, which Microsoft invested in, no doubt partly to blunt the DoJ attack), a new collection of "Baby Bills" would, at least going into the game, still control the desktop operating system, the desktop Internet browser, and the standard desktop productivity suite." I don't know if I agree with it, but the theory is plausible. Jake
infooverload	posted 11-18-1999 11:41 AM Microsoft has announced that they are basically giving up in the Instant Messaging war with AOL. The reason? They are concerned that as the war would continue, security for the users would be copromised. Though move may also have been made for PR purposes in the light of the recent antitrust ruling. Regardless, AOL 1, MSFT 0. It will be interesting to see what come of this.
dude	posted 11-17-1999 09:23 AM > Do businesses really care about this sort of thing? Businesses that use MS products don't care if MSFT is a monopoly. Businesses that compete with MSFT do. > Also, anyone know how much revenue for MSFT comes from biz to biz vs. biz to consumer? I just flipped through their annual report but I didn't see this info. I'm sure the info is out there somewhere. My guess would be 60-65% business, 35-40% consumer. One more thing about StarOffice: Also, StarDivision lost four key developers to Microsoft after Sun acquired them. Sun has been very successful so far, but this time it's picked the wrong company to mess with.
humanity	posted 11-16-1999 12:13 PM One thing I had not been keeping in mind when thinking about the antitrust ruling: In an article I read today about the Computer Expo this week, one guy was quoted as saying that businesses don't care about the ruling...they all still want to do business with MSFT. And this is an important point, because when all is said and done, do businesses really care about this sort of thing? Or do they just want to do business with companies that will bring them value, regardless of business practices? Also, anyone know how much revenue for MSFT comes from biz to biz vs. biz to consumer?

This topic is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 All times are EST (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Home Page

Press ctrl-D to bookmark this page for future reference.
By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use.
Copyright 2001 InvestorGuide.com Inc.