IP: RE: DOJ and MS and what is best for all

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>From: "Meeks, Brock (MSNBCi)" <Brock.Meeks@MSNBC.COM>
>To: "'farber@cis.upenn.edu'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>
>You're on the money, Dave.
>
>In the break up scenario, I was committed to holding my stock in both
>companies.  However, if MS is slapped with anything near the restrictions in
>Judge Jackson's original order, I'm SELLING my entire Microsoft holding.
>
>All one has to do is look at the managled legislative and regulatory morass
>that the Bells were made to go through under Judge Green's oversight of the
>AT&T break up (and remember, that was done under consent decree).
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:15 PM
>To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>Subject: IP: DOJ and MS and what is best for all
>
>
>If Declan is anywhere near right, they USG will be "regulating" MS as a
>alternative to splitting. I have often said that, in my opinion, it would
>be better for MS to split rather that be  micro-managed by the USG.  So we
>may get to see if I am right.
>
>I could see two companies aggressively pursuing innovation in what will be
>a rapidly changing field unburdened by the legacy of their former business
>model but free of the anti-trust action. IF the regulatory approach is
>taken my bet is MS will be severely constrained in their behavior and will
>spend a good deal of energy and people time in courts and challenges by
>would be competitors.
>
>Note I said it would be better for MS to split not that it would be best
>for the rest of the industry. I really believe that but hay I don't own any
>MS stock.
>
>
>
>For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/