Re: Should the Fed Gov break up Microsoft?

["Mike Westerfield" <MikeW50@aol.com>]

----------
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