Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  alternatives(), 19 Feb 2002 @ 8:55pm

  
  

  If that is the way you see things......

  It seems a little late for such a lawsuit, since the company is basically gone,
  
  Hrmmm, lets see. Based on this kind of logic - nothing can be done for the dead - then why pay $$$ to the families who had members killed in Sept 11? Why even bother going after /bin/laden, the dead are already dead, no?
  
  How about Enron investors? The rule of the stock market is you place your money and you take your chances....so why the big stink? Besides, all that money is gone, is a lawsuit going to bring back the money?
  
  To late to 'save' the vision that was BeOS, yes. But do you feel that if Be was harmed by the actions of an illegal monopoly via alledged extortion, that said alledged extortionist should be allowed to keep all the economic reward they gained via that alledged extortion?
  
  If Be can prove that Microsoft used their monopoly position illegally, bully for Be. Be has little to loose, but the people who need to testify, Compaq, IBM, HP, Dell, Gateway and others will not. Why? Fear of retribution. There is no witness protection program for companies.
  
  
  
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 19 Feb 2002 @ 9:10pm

    
    

    Re: If that is the way you see things......

    Hey, calm down. All I was saying was that if Be really felt Microsoft shut them down, they had a case a long time ago. It seems a bit odd to wait this long to file the case.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      alternatives(), 19 Feb 2002 @ 10:25pm

      
      

      Re: If that is the way you see things......

      Not at all. To collect damages, you must prove harm. Going from a 1 Billion valuation to $11 Million is alot of damage.
      
      All Be has to do is prove Micro$oft is why that happened.
      
      Lets play 'how would things be different'....if Be had sued before the IPO, what damage was done? Would Be still have failed? Odds are Mircosoft would have been less heavy handed, and Be would not have the case they now think they have.
      
      

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Mike (profile), 19 Feb 2002 @ 11:10pm

        
        

        Re: If that is the way you see things......

        Right, but based on that, your strategy should always be to go out of business and sue whatever competition you couldn't beat. If you want to have the "case they have now" then you should always make sure to go out of business. That's a sound business strategy.
        
        My point, was that it's silly to sue the competition after your company is dead. If you're really in this to build a company, you do what it takes to try to keep that company alive. If they knew Microsoft was messing with them (and it appears they did know) why not hit while there's still a chance they can live?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          alternatives(), 20 Feb 2002 @ 6:29am

          
          

          Re: If that is the way you see things......

          Right, but based on that, your strategy should always be to go out of business and sue whatever competition you couldn't beat
          
          Does that get you the best return on investment?
          
          I thought the goal was ROI.
          
          Taking the time value of money, the cut the lawyers will take, are you willing to claim that the ROI will be better than having a 'classically successful' business.
          
          My point, was that it's silly to sue the competition after your company is dead.
          
          Silly? How so? It is only silly if you think Microsoft violated no laws in getting to where they are. Laws like purgery, for example.
          
          If violation of laws are not to be taken into consideration, then what about Enron or /bin/laden? (I'd love to see your response, how consistance you are about courts and law)

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • 

            Mike (profile), 20 Feb 2002 @ 8:34am

            
            

            Re: If that is the way you see things......

            I'm not sure where your confusion is. My point is that if Microsoft was responsible for the demise of Be, as they're claiming, it was because of stuff they many years ago - which Be knew about at the time. And, yet, they didn't sue then. That's when they should have sued.
            
            The other cases are cases where any action took place as soon as what happened was known about/discovered/blown up, whatever. In Be's case, they waited 6 yeas to file this lawsuit until after they were out of business.
            
            My point has nothing to do with whether or not Microsoft violated any laws.
            
            It has to do with Be waiting this long.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • 

              alternatives(), 20 Feb 2002 @ 12:02pm

              
              

              Re: If that is the way you see things......

              And Be may not have had documentation of these actions, or sorted them until now.
              
              I don't know when they knew what happened when. And I doubt you do.
              
              Like any bully situation, the 'adults' won't do anything unless the evidence is overwhelming. Be has collected what it feels is enough information to go to the teacher and have the bully shut down. As a later story here on techdirt says, when Microsoft felt the heat was off, they went back to beating up on vendors. Had Be complained eailer, Microsoft might have backed off in a public manner, and Be would not have the documentation they now have.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]