Re: Should the Fed Gov break up Microsoft?

[Frank Carney <frankc@cyberhighway.net>]

Mike Westerfield wrote:

> ----------
> In article <20000127014137.10264.00000226@ng-fh1.aol.com>,
> supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
> >     Tend to disagree. Microsoft has done a good job of delivering a decent
> >standard OS for PC machines. If they were close to having a monopoly it is
> >because millions of users 'voted' for Microsoft products.
>
> Much as I hate Windows, I can't find any fault with this. While it's
> possible for the government to go after a company merely for existing as a
> monopoly, I can't think of any cases where they have. In other words,
> _being_ a monopoly is not what triggers government action.
>
> The problem with Microsoft is that they have used this monopoly position to
> force other companies into decisions they did not want to make.
>
> Think of it as the difference between being big and powerful and being the
> schoolyard bully: We respect big, powerful people and try to get them on the
> football team, but we tend to punish bullies. Microsoft has acted the part
> of the bully. They have done this repeatedly. The actual case the government
> brought was, in my opinion, one of the weaker ones. What about Quicken? They
> survived, but bundling Microsoft Money with the OS because Quicken refused
> to sell out was a classic technique. What about Apple's Macintosh BASIC? It
> was literally ready to ship, with books already on the bookstore shelves,
> when the Applesoft license was up for renewal. A Microsoft representative
> sat down and literally said, you ship Macintosh BASIC and we won't renew
> your license. Microsoft had just shipped their own, inferior BASIC.
>
> Do you think Microsoft will reform? Think again. One of the situations the
> judge cited in his finding of fact was a Microsoft threat against Apple. If
> Apple shipped specific features in QuickTime 4 for Windows, Microsoft
> outlined specific plans to retaliate by closing off Windows to QuickTime and
> shipping their own closed, proprietary systems. (That's a gross
> simplification, but you get the idea.) The judge used this as an example of
> the sort of threat Microsoft should not be using. _After_ the finding of
> fact, Microsoft followed through with the threat! Reform? Ha!
>
> Should Microsoft be broken up? Yes. Absolutely. Into little bitty pieces.
> I'd like to see the O/S itself spread across more than one company.
>
> Mike Westerfield

I would have to say these are compelling arguments, however, does M$ still have
the control of the distribution points it had before the case?  If it does then
a break up would be in order.  If that control has been weakened a significant
amount as a result of the case then the actual going through the motions may
have already done enough harm to M$.

I am sure if the government has already found that M$ is a monopoly and has
abused that power to eliminate competition and enter new markets then they will
be broken up.  How should they be broken up though?  Who should define what
each market consists of?  Do you really want the government defining what can
and cannot be is an OS?  I have to say NO WAY!  If a break up occurs then
someone might take a stab at Linux saying, "You can no longer include built in
TCP/IP cause it is needed for that internet stuff!".  Lawyers are the wrong
people to make technical decisions (Look at M$ quality) for anybody.  It should
be decided by the market.

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not like the way M$ does business, but who are
we going to hurt by letting the government into the software market?  The
person they are trying to protect, THE USER!  Here is some good news though:
The software industry is changing, the case against M$ has only accelerated
it.  Open source software IS the future of the industry.  There will still be
closed sourced vendors, but the OS will be open game in the future.  Everyone
will be on an even keel with the same advantages, and best of all:
USERS WILL DEFINE FEATURES!  This is not a guess, but a fact.  Look at what is
happening to the net.  Vendors are moving some development to Linux every day.

Okay, enough preaching...