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/