snip...

> > Well that's a mixed message isn't it?  Sun doesn't get FLOSS,
> > but they are throwing so much money at it, the stock holders
> > are going to get pissed.  RiiiIIIiiiight....
>
> From a purely legal POV, _any_ money that SUN spends on FLOSS is
> enough to trigger a shareholder suit.   The only real question is
> how long the shareholders will sit.

-1

This position is inconsistent with my general law school education 
about shareholder derivative suits.  OOo is helping to increase 
StarOffice sales.  As I recall, a shareholder's derivative suit 
needs to show harm to the stock value and the failure of the 
directions to exercise reasonable business discretion.  Both prongs 
of that cause of action are missing here, IMHO. 

>
> Look at the five year, two year, and one year history of their
> stock price.   Then do a comparison against the Dow, Nasdaq and
> S&P.  Toss MSFT into that history.

Sun's products are closer to the back end than the front end.  The 
history that you are citing tends to support my understanding of 
Christensen's theory of disruptive technologies.  Because Sun is 
closer to the back end, where the leading edge of the Linux 
disruptive wave, Sun got hurt sooner and worse that Microsoft.

However, Microsoft also experienced lagging new sales.  The income 
that they have been reporting over the last 20 months or so has 
been income which was the result of their Software Assurance 
program.  If you look at their actual sales, their sales have been 
flat since October or November 2002, according to Melanie Hollands 
2004/7/7 article in the IT Managers Journal, which is googleable.  
(I'm on dial-up today, or I would have googled it.)

>
> > Very nice summary of why I don't fear for Microsoft's future. 
> > That and $50 Billion in the bank - don't forget that.
> >
> > That is insane.  There is no evidence of any of that happening
> > - ever.
>
> I guessed you missed the speech where Balmar all but announced
> the date that they would start filing suits against users of
> software that violates their patents.  And who the targets of
> those suits were.

I also missed that speech.  Would you mind linking it? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to