There is no question, it's only a matter of "when." In the future there will be another company like MS. It's only natural, there are simply too many people who don't understand competition and how you exactly compete in a capitalist society. I guarantee that most MS employees will simply point to stock value or profit or money and there are a large number of people outside of the company who do the same thing. No amount of regulation can change that and as long as that's the case there will be companies that do as much as they can to "compete" and "win." At the same time, for everyone of those companies there is probably 20, if not more, that take more pride and measure "winning" in their innovation, their ability to satisfy as many customers (if not all) as possible, their treatment of their employees, and their products. It's only the few dysfunctional companies that ruin it. When you try and make "reasonable regulations" you potentially hurt all companies if those regulations don't turn out to be so reasonable.

In an industry that is this volitile, making sweeping regulations like that could be really bad. There are things that might make a lot of sense now that won't in 20 years, or it could be the other way and there are things that don't make sense now that will make sense in 20 years and because we would have existing regulations on the books it would be harder to pass them in to law in the future (remember where most political money comes from: companies and corporations)

The right thing to do is to regulate MS, the offending party. When another company comes along, we'll regulate them too. To take a real world example, look at IBM. In the 1950s IBM was accused of antitrust crimes, IBM won but ended up with a concent decree against them. That concent decree wasn't entirely lifted until the mid 1990s. It said that IBM couldn't admit that products even existed until they announced them and they couldn't announce them until 90 days before they shipped. (That could have possibly changed the face of computing, MS was busy selling Windows 4.0 (aka WIndows95) in 1992 and IBM couldn't say much of anything about versions of OS/2 until they were ready to go. It has a profound freezing effect on the market) It also dictated some support requirements that bound IBM to support some products for what would be considered unreasonable amounts of time by today's standards. It was a huge hinderence to IBM and it has definitely cost them marketshare, not that it wasn't a good thing, it made it possible for companies like MS and Intel to become as big as they are. It wouldn't have changed a thing if all the other companies were bound to play by the same rules.

The best way to deal with MS would be a similar concent decree. MS has done some good, they provide a huge common standard platform. Require them to publish all their interfaces and protocols, require them to keep quite about products until 180 days before launch (punnish them stiffly if they miss the date), make them change some of their licensing practices, perhaps require them to donate some infrastructure components to a standards committee. It doesn't punish them unduly and it's a reasonable punishment that won't be overturned on appeal, plus it's just good business. Breaking them up looks appealing but how will it change things? How should they be broken up? It may just multiply the problem if they aren't broken up correctly.

Doesn't anyone else see what's really happening here?

with an opinion piece by a Silicon Valley Congressman, Tom Campbell.

Of course this clown's arguing to break up Microsoft - he represents lots of Microsoft competitors. These folks have been using California's political clout to drive a vendetta against another company that is unfortunate enough to be headquarted in a politically unimportant state. It's a witch hunt against some interlopers who dared to best the Valley's finest. If Microsoft had been founded in the Silicon Valley, it'd be the darling of the industry.

Maybe Microsoft's competitors should try doing a better job of competing in the marketplace instead of paying off congressmen.

Ok, well.. First, my initial thoughts: it doesn't really matter either way. Just by making this case against Microsoft, the DoJ has forced Microsoft to be a little less overt with their strong arm tactics, and allowed a few cracks in their marketing armor to be made. It's just a matter of time before Microsoft is relagated to being a bit player. A company that rich won't simply go away, however, and will remain a part of the Establishment, but no one will give a damn about them anymore. Not really. (in the future they may actually make decent products, but only their core, truly fanatical group of users will still be on the bandwagon long enough to actually care)

Another thing that comes to mind is all this alluding to Ma Bell throughout this discussion.. I'd like to remind all of you that Microsoft is not a phone company. There's a little less room for competition with phone companies (at least at the local level) because you don't exactly want to have a few dozen different sets of phone lines strewn all across your town or whatever. The software industry is full of competition, and is one of the easiest industries to break into. I think a combination of unfair business practics on the part of Microsoft, lack of marketing savvy on the part of other companies, and various other things (like total ignorance on the part of the end-user) have contributed to their monopolistic reign.

Regulation.. As I said, this isn't a phone company, ok? It's a diverse industry, not a single giant. Regulation.. would be bad.

Break them up..? Oh, who cares. It's too much trouble. And it's still not a phone company. I say fine the bastards a huge sum and spend the money on something useful.. (that's right Uncle Sam, no more gold-plated toilets in outhouses in the middle of heavily forested regions no one shall ever visit)

Everyone should just be happy there is strong competition on the horizon. The market is starting to get a lot more interesting. There's too much focus on Microsoft, anyway. It gives them more credit than they deserve. Be pro-whatever, not anti-Microsoft. Otherwise you make it seem like whatever you are for really isn't worth anything except as a tool to beat down Microsoft so that something "way kewl" will eventually come out.. Especially since comparing *BSD, or GNU/Linux, or even MacOS in many instances is like comparing a big juicy steak to a big rotting carcass with a lot of air freshener sprayed all over it. =P

At the very least.. consider the differences in different industries before comparing monopolies from.. you guessed it.. different industries.

~ Kish

If you have something intelligent to say, you'll log in or get moderated up so I can read it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

Despite the horrific bloat in MS-Office, Word still blows the doors off of Word Perfect (and I use Word Perfect for 80% of my word processing nowadays...so I know what I'm talking about).

On the other hand, does eliminating the close ties between software and OS prevent MS from leveraging their monopoly? I'm not so sure it does. I could see the OS division sill having too much clout. After all, there is nothing to stop them from giving preferencial treatment to the other divisions of MS or something like that.


Man + Beer = More Man.

Actually, most proposals I've seen from the "break-them-up" camp have put forth mechanisms to do exactly that -- prevent the OS division from collaborating with the applications division(s). The applications division(s) would only be allowed the same access to OS information (APIs, etc.) that would be publicly available to other companies.

Naturally, the only way for this to work would be punitive fines if any illegal collaboration would be discovered.

Honestly, one of the main complaints about Microsoft has been the issue of the blurring of the line between OS and applications, leading the the dreaded DLL dependency problems, among other things. This type of breakup should actually improve the quality of Microsoft applications and the stability of the OS.

It probably wouldn't take long to see versions of Office for UNIX/*BSD/Linux systems because the new divisions will no longer have a direct interest in the OS business -- and they will have to be fiscally responsible for their own success or failure.

--
Donate free food to hungry people at: http://www.thehungersite.com

I think the remedy question is very, very difficult. However, I think that it is an important one and something that should have a lot of critical thought put into it. In particular, the question of who is served is paramount. Microsoft is almost certain to be found guilty, but we need to determine if there are remedies that can cause consumers to become better off than they would otherwise be.

First of all, just about ALL the *specific* issues that were argued in the anti-trust trial (ISP arm twisting, browser bundling, etc) are already obsolete (did you notice how nobody is suggesting these days that MS should seperate the browser from the OS?) . This raises profound questions:

* how must a monopoly in software be proven? And how can its misuse be proven?

* how must the remedy be issued, when you know for certain that by the time you make the judgement, the original complaints are obsolete in this fast moving industry.

These comments indicate a confusion of the issues. The specific issue that is argued in the anti-trust trial - that Microsoft is using its monopoly in PC operating systems to stifle legitimate innovations that might reduce the power of that monopoly - is certainly not made obsolete by its success in drowning those innovations. (Don't believe that this is what the trial is about? Check out //http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2600/2613.htm ) Asserting this is like letting a serial killer go free because all of his victims are already dead - what remedy is there for them? So, the original complaint is not obsolete, only some of the direct victims of the questionable Microsoft policies.

Because of this, the second starred question is not clearly relevant. The "fast moving industry" line is a simple but common red-herring, if it is even true for operating systems. (We've all been waiting fifteen years for Microsoft to release an operating system that is as stable as MS-DOS, which was itself perhaps ten years behind the OS industry's front line.) The remedy question is perplexing, but it is certainly not clouded by the fact that successful anti-trust violations can destroy entire companies and even sub-industries quickly. Of relevance is that these violations can have long-term effects on potential software innovators, and it is this that the remedies must take into account.

Also, just because no one you work with at your workplace is suggesting that IE should be separated from Windows does not mean that there aren't people who understand right away that it is a good thing to do. In fact, the inappropriate coupling of the two is one of the main reasons that I switched to Linux. And don't imagine that I think of Linux as a great operating system (yet). It is simply not an appropriate option for the great majority of people. (It's also not in the relevant market - it's provided for free by volunteers who might otherwise have better things to do - but that's another issue.)

The first starred questions are more than adequately answered by the example of the above link. It can certainly be shown that a software property holder is a monopoly, and that that monopolist is abusive in an anti-trust sense. One can argue, largely against the evidence, that such a legal judgement does not apply to Microsoft, but one cannot argue with the bases upon which such a legal judgement is made, since they are a part of the law. The tests are fairly explicit, and involve determination of barriers to entry, the power to raise prices above (economic) costs, the legitemacy of product tying, and the foreclosure of markets. So, there are no real questions about what it means to determine that a software property holder is guilty of anti-trust violations. One can argue that all of anti-trust law should be thrown out as immoral, but probably more people felt that way before Microsoft came on the scene than after, and I won't deal with that question here.

For starters, monopoly for MS is not as simple as it appears, since you're narrowing the industry to the "PC operating systems" arena. If you narrow down segments of industry, Oracle is a monopoly in the midrange server database market (HP tunes its OS to run faster on Oracle, is that a sign of too much power?), and IBM is a monopoly in the mainframe database segment (easily more than 90% of S/370 machines use DB2, both of them ibm products). Similarly, Palm may be said to be a monopoly in the handheld segment.

I think if any of the above companies were subject to the same scrutiny as MS, there would be several issues of leverage of market share.

It has not been determined that Oracle or Palm have significant barriers to competitive entry or the power to raise their prices above economic costs. Remember, market share is irrelevent to determination of a monopoly. In the case of IBM's mainframes, there has been no recent determination that anti-trust violations have occured, if it could even be shown that a monopoly existed for a market that seems so suceptible to lower-priced substitution. If any of these facts change, then by all means anti-trust enforcement should (and I imagine will) be applied.

Keep in mind that one major reason for IBM's downfall was a 10 year lawsuit by the same Dept. of Justice. The case? IBM was bundling its mainframe hardware, OS, and database products. At that time, geeks were cheering on two young companies that dared to take on the evil monolithic empire - Microsoft and Apple.

Well, guess what? 20 years later - IBM is STILL bundling its hardware, OS, and database products. Why is the DoJ not caring? Because it's a dead, obsolete market. The mainframe has been overtaken by the PC, and all the issues that were so fiercely argued decades ago, became irrelevant. It's the same deal. IBM caved in due to the lawsuit, which resulted in literally a warehouse full of documents they had to shovel around.

Should IBM have been hurt so badly because it played rough in the mainframe market, knowing that it was an unquestioned giant (and not knowing that it was surrounded by nimble, faster velociraptors)? Because of the DoJ case, IBM had reached the point where lawyers were attending every meeting, and had to approve of every plan. It killed them. Did they deserve it?

First, it must be noted that IBM is far from dead. In fact, evidence was introduced into the Microsoft trial indicating that its revenues were higher than those of any other company in the computer industry. However, it is true that it no longer engages in policy that violates anti-trust regulations, such that government oversight is determined to be required. Its mainframes are profitable but subject to substitution and it makes a nice, tidy business out of competing head-to-head, with no inherent advantage, in the brutal battle for desktop PCs. Is this the IBM "downfall"? It seems to be completely reformed, and as such, its example seems to be an odd basis upon which to insist that the anti-trust action should not have been taken.

This argument, in its various manifestations, tries to have it both ways. On one hand, it proposes that IBM was unfairly hurt by the trustbusters. On the other hand, it insists that the enforcement was misguided because Microsoft came along and out-competed IBM in a way that had nothing to do with the anti-trust actions. Well, which is it? If Microsoft would have out-competed IBM anyways, then why was the enforcement such a blow? As it turns out, this is the center of one of the great ironies of the Microsoft anti-trust trial.

Think about it seriously - if you were an IBM executive in 1977 just about to introduce a new product line, would you prefer to also provide an IBM operating system for the project, as had been done with all other IBM computing products up to that time, and which had always worked to IBM's advantage in such concrete ways that IBM was under anti-trust regulation for that reason; or would you rather license the operating system from some external source with no control over its eventual deployment or development? People often hypothesize that IBM simply dropped the ball, that they didn't realize how important microprocessor-based computers would become. But is that really a sensible conclusion? It seems like the largest mistake in the history of computing from our vantage point, and can it really have seemed like a much better decision at the time? Not to belabour a point, but would you ever, ever, in a million years, even without the benefit of hindsight make such a decision? Well, of course you might - if there were an anti-trust lawyer in the room with you as you made it.

So what would have been the result with no oversight of IBM's activities? Likely, IBM would still control all aspects of most computers. They would have a full lock on both hardware and software, with vast barriers to entry that we can hardly imagine. IBM would certainly have easily crushed any attempt by a fledgeling Microsoft to innovate on and replace the operating system base. It's likely that Microsoft would never have even tried. We can doubt whether IBM would have ever needed to add a graphical shell, had ever needed to follow any outside networking standards. It is a world without vast sources of innovation - just ask Microsoft.

The entire tragi-comedy appears in full splendour now. Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail against the very anti-trust activities upon which it was reared. It's like legal Oedipus. There's more - consumers now seem to have benefitted dramatically from the IBM action. Not only did it bring about the rise of Microsoft products, but also GUIs, clone hardware, WYSIWIG, spreadsheets, even PC databases. So we should always have regulators sitting in the offices of our most powerful computing companies, right?

I don't think so. You may think MS is truly bad and evil, but the reality is they are just like any other company. And the reality is also that it's better for the govt. to stay away. This is very difficult to realise when you hate Microsoft so badly, but keep in mind that many young geeks hated IBM just as badly, and the point still stands - if you wound a company that will be obsolete in a decade or two because it played rough, it will always be unfair from a historical viewpoint.

The humour here is that they are just like one other specific company. Who exactly is it unfair to from a historical viewpoint? Why exactly should the government stay away? Does anti-trust action really hate Microsoft, or does Microsoft just dislike the successful relationship anti-trust has with IBMom? There are thousands of sons who hate their father, and there are thousands of geeks who are just waiting to spring their innovations upon the world, delayed only by the power of the Microsoft they hate.

Keep the long view in mind. Breaking up the company may seem tempting, but you'll only hurt the industry - the same way the DOJ's interference in IBM's day-to-day affairs hurt the mainframe market nobody cares about now. Keep that in mind.

It is apparent from the historical evidence that severe anti-trust interference need not hurt consumers in the long term. However, this is not a carte-blanche for government takings, even against monopolists. Clearly, there are remedies that will be unfair to the shareholders of the monopoly firm. As well, there is no evidence to support the idea, jokingly proposed above, that consumers would be better off with constant government intrusion into the activities of the industry leader. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe that such regulation would be very bad for consumers, as Microsoft is careful to point out. However, the consumer benefits of some sort of action are becoming more and more identifiable, and significant legally determined violations of anti-trust law must be met by some remedy. It is perhaps not possible to select an anti-trust action that will, in concert with intellectual property and other law, cause the software industry to act in the consumers' interest without any requirement for anti-trust action to be taken again in the future.

This is why the remedy question is so difficult. Of all the shades of grey, we have to find the one that most benefits the customer without unfairly taking from the violating, but merely profit driven, monopolist.

Sons should not have to hate their fathers, and hackers should not have to hate Microsoft. Microsoft should not have to hate the Department of Justice, but what other option do we have at the current time? Clear customer benefit seems likely to result from any serious enforcement. Perhaps a better system of laws can be developed for software property that does not pit the industry leader against the trustbusters for doing what will naturally cause business profit. Until then, severe anti-trust action seems to be the best option consumers and the industry have.

This just shows the whole fallacy of the breaking up idea.

If Microsoft had been two separate companies, an "OS company" and an "Application company", before the start of the browser war, which of those two companies would have built a browser?

Answer? The OS company. Netscape was touting their browser as a new computing platform that would "make the operating system irrelevant". It always was a bigger threat to the OS business than the applications business. Sure, maybe the application company might have built a browser as well (remember when it seemed like every company in existance was writing a browser?), but it still would have settled down to a battle between Netscape and the OS company, me thinks.

The real solution is just to let companies compete in the marketplace. If Netscape had written the better browser, they'd still be on top today.

Impossible to know for sure, but I doubt it. How could they compete? M$ has done this to heaps of other competitors going back to dos days, ie, include a free version of a competitors product, tie it to the OS.

-- Reverend Vryl
Open Source Cult Member

Wow! Another eloquent, well-argued rebuttal!

Oh gimme a break. Nobody is punishing Microsoft for being successful. Only idiots keep trying to trot out that tired line. Microsoft is being prosecuted for breaking some pretty well-established laws. They are called anti-trust laws. They are part of what keeps our current system running properly. Without them the system probably wouldn't work. It would at least need significant changes to make it work, and then it wouldn't really be the same system. Just because the recent Republican administrations have resisted enforcing the laws doesn't mean they have disappeared.

Anyone who has done their homework on this trial (hint: you have to read more than the M$ bashing you find on the ZDNET site) will have realized by now that the charges are without any basis in fact.

I've read just about everything I can find about the trial, including Microsoft's own articles.

ALL of the prosecution's witnesses are competitors. Their motives are automatically suspect.

Big deal. All of Microsoft's witnesses are employees (or partners) with equally suspect motives.

In the case if Netscape, there is convincing evidence that they manufactured evidence to order for the DOJ.

Perhaps you'd like to give a reference to this convincing evidence? I've not seen it.

A prior trial SPECIFICALLY allowed that IE and Windows could be integrated if any reasonable consumer benefit could be shown.

That trial was a farce. They took nothing else into account when the law states that intent is an important factor in determining such things. The DOJ has used Microsoft's own internal email to show their intent had very little if anything to do with consumers and everything to do with killing Netscape. It's all there in black and white.

The only other charge with any teeth is the one about M$ offering to divide the market with Netscape, and THAT turns out to have been made up by the Netscape executives.

I've read Microsoft's take on this. I don't buy it. I believe the evidence is definitely in Netscape's favor on this one. Andreeson's notes from the meeting were distributed much too quickly after the meeting for any tampering to have been done.

In the end the only thing the goverment managed to _prove_ is that: M$ has competitors that don't like them.

Sure they don't like them. MS breaks the law in order to kill competitors. They're using the government to get justice. We have anti-trust laws for a reason. Microsoft has to play by the rules or face the consequences.

So since this trial is clearly not about Justice, the only other reasonable explanation is that it's about envy. Or perhaps, just about business...

Just another person willing to stick his head in the sand and give Microsoft the benefit of what extremely little doubt remains. After listening to Microsoft's witnesses try to convince everyone that black is white and everything that was said in the emails really means the opposite, I have no doubt that they are guilty as hell.

I just have to laugh. Europe/Asia/etc. would love to have had Microsoft as a homegrown company arising from someone's garage

Microsoft just beat theirs into the ground. And now we want to punish them.

Added to which, we should all be generally opposed to government interference, lest a product we care about be their next target.

Alternatively, I would be happy if the court ordered Bill Gates to take a pie in the face during every speaking engagement and product launch. But then, I'm a small, petty man in a lot of ways.

Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
Sooner or later, you get infected.

1. It launches a hell of a lot faster. I don't really notice the differences in rendering time, just the difference in the time it takes to launch. Don't flame me, I am talking only of my particular system, YMMV. ;-)

2. It has more robust support for frames.

3. It has more complete and more robust support for Cascading Style Sheets.

4. Overall MSIE5 handles mangled or poor HTML a lot better than Netscape. Some would say this is a problem with the people writing HTML, and I would agree. Not being able to fix their mark-up, however, I prefer to use a browser that won't actually crash when it encounters bad code.

I know there are HTML purists out there who intensely dislike frames and/or CSS. I agree that they can be annoying if improperly used. However, if used correctly they can really make a page look nice and add to the overall experience of visiting that web site.

BTW, I am in no way an HTML professional. I'll take care of the infrastructure and leave the applications to those who are good at it, thank you.

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Is everyone that works directly or indirectly at Microsoft tainted with the same monopolizing attitudes as those that have created the monopoly? I have to say 'no'. In every poorly managed, back-stabbing company, there is always someone, who could move up into the executive level, that doesn't have the same agandas which caused this mess in the first place.

With that in mind, the forced breakup of Microsoft could allows those people to "step up to the plate" and possibly change the monopoly and win by having a better product.

Microsoft is, itself, dead. Baby Microsofts could prove to be stellar company which produces an excellent product.

It's something to think about ...

..how do you figure one has a trial without government involvement? Did I miss something? Is the judicial branch of government no longer a branch of government but rather a group of vigilante crime-fighters?

At any rate, if you believe that the U.S. government is worse than Microsoft.. you're first and foremost ignorant anyway, because obviously you have a problem distinguishing separate parts of the U.S. government. Ever heard of checks and balances? Apparently not. But back to my point.. you might as well just move to another country. And if you already do live in another country, you should probably just shut up. I'm thinking you do live in the U.S. though. Trust me, the U.S. government as a whole is not precisely one of the circles of hell, ok?

~ Kish

If you have something intelligent to say, you'll log in or get moderated up so I can read it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

The whole point of an anti-trust action is to restore the operation of the market forces that have been locked out by the power of a monopoly or a cartel. A breakup of MS is 100% in the spirit of a market solution. Failure to act in this matter amounts to a "pass" issued by the gov to a known, proven lawbreaker, and an endorsement of their monopoly. If you read Wealth of Nations, you will know that this is chief "evil" of monopoly Adam Smith warned against. They all either originate in or eventually sprout a bodily connection to the State.

We must sever this NOW.

1. A company the size and pervasiveness of the current Microsoft can successfully drag out and quickly subvert any regulatory process or decision. They would have (eventually) almost veto-like control over who makes up the regulatory commission, and top officer of this board will be a political appointee, and in the end, a shadow employee of MS.

True -- copyrights and patents are governent imposed solutions that don't work well in software circles. Why don't they just stop interfering??

Get rid of copyrights and patents (and trademarks) and then see how the market drives things...

Basically, the current 'government imposed solution' doesn't work that well, and needs some correction.

The difference between refusing to enforce rights and taking property at gunpoint is a big as the difference between removing somebody from life support and shooting them.

For starters I am sure we are all aware that their early flagship product MS-DOS is practically a direct hack of CP/M and from that point onward their major products have been nothing but borrowed, purchased, or stolen software. Bill might take a moment to re-read his infamouse letter from the 70's.

But, on the other hand, devisions of Micrsoft have innovated thinks, like you said, small and behind the scenes. That's one of the few advantages of throwing some good talent at a problem. As far as I can remember (and please don't flame me if I'm wrong here) but integrating the Office apps to work together was a first.

Each of the innovations that Microsft programers have made, have been made inside a particular product devlopement group. Breaking up Microsoft to mimic those developement groups would insure those true innovations continue.

People are very likely to just to the conclusion Microsoft hasn't innovated anything because they instantly think of things like The GUI O/S, or wordprocessors, or Internet Browsers. None of these items Microsoft has innovated and even they will have to admit to that.

As far a breaking up Microsft, how much good will that actually accomplish. Microsoft products have the potential of being great products. But products being driven my marketing deadlines and CEO's with egos the size of Texas only works to hinder the developement of those pieces of software.

Is the question about loosening Microsofts grip on computer users as a whole, or trying to make better products? The government will tell you it's about loosening Microsfts grip, Microsoft will tell you it's about making better products. Which is it? The two are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other.

I think the real issue is making Microsoft accountable for the software it releases and improving the overall quality of the software line produced. And I think that can be accomplished by cutting and slashing divisions in to smaller, streamlined, programmer run divisons. So what if they loose some profits for a little while?

Fact: Bill Gates, since the beginning, has always kept enough money in reserve to pay all the salaries for the entire length of a zero profit year.

Microsoft is in no danger of loosing money, no matter what happens. I'm more interested in loosing the blue screens of death when I'm playing games.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"

Finally you might get "M~999999" at which point the filesystem, if it hasn't already broken down probably would then.

Hmm.. maybe I should write a little prog to test this theory :) Might be interesting. It would probably crash long before I got that many files created though. I have a spare 4 gig drive to try this on though... hmm...

MICROS~1 should be broken up into seperate companies 1 to do OSes, 1 to do consumer apps, 1 to do commercial/enterprise apps, and one to do software develpoment apps.

What is the point of splitting them along those lines? Why split consumer apps apart from commercial/enterprise apps? I could possibly see why software development apps should be split off. They should be given the same access to the OS as any other 3rd party developer. But why should they necessarily be cut off from the company that does the consumer or commercial/enterprise app development?

I've never been a big fan of splitting Microsoft up. I'd rather see them forced to publish a pricelist based solely on volume and forbidden from using MDAs or any other such deal to favor certain OEMs that do as Microsoft wishes. This method probably requires a bit more thought in order to close all the loopholes, but I think it might be more effective as well. Just my opinion though.

To stop them comming up with, say, an enterprise e-commerce server with ActiveDooDads(TM) and then having ActiveDooDads(TM) only work properly with their own client software.

As long as they aren't getting any more access to the OS than any other company, they should be free to create all the ActiveDooDads(TM) they want. If they aren't integrated into the OS, then there's no problem. Any app company could make their own version of ActiveDooDads(TM).

The only issue I see is that the app-company-formerly-known-as-Microsoft would have a pretty decent head start on the other app companies out there. Not sure if this is a real problem or something that would sort itself out pretty quick.

No amount of screaming about MSHTML, Frontpage extensions, or perverted Java here or in other places has ever had any imapact on Microsoft plans to subvert and capture standards.

Please uncomment include_adult_settings in your /etc/realityperception.conf

I think he meant FULLY documented formats for ALL file types.

Anyone who has ever tried to save a document in anything other than the native format knows about the salvo of ominous messages warning about 'loss of fidelity'. FUD, FUD, FUD.

Call or write your state and federal legislative representatives today and ask for legislation barring states and feds from storing public records in proprietary file formats. Make all companies comply with this, not just MS. Just because they were first to abuse us in this way doesn't mean they will be last.

Here is the text of the message I've been spamming my reps with:

The press debate regarding the fate of Microsoft in its battle with the DOJ is hopelessly misguided. Using early 20th century anti-trust remedies like splitting up a company or regulating its products is no way to secure the future of the digital society. In fact, Microsoft should not be touched at all. Sure, they behave like spoiled brats, but any direct sanction will be ineffective, and will not address the larger issue of technology companies dictating the rules and costs of participation in society. If you really want to protect society, change the market: pass federal and state laws requiring that all publicly owned computer systems store and transmit data in non-proprietary formats.

Open file formats enhance competition by eliminating 'product lock', the inability to switch vendors because of file incompatibilities. They also enable the free exchange of information among all people, with the World Wide Web as prime example. When the world's largest consumer of computer software demands open file formats, the vendors will all comply.

This sounds like a good idea, but this is what the congressman referred to as a "behavioral remedy". Unless someone is closely watching, M$ can easily change their behavior, and force another trial before their file formats are opened. I really don't want the .gov trying to regulate the industry - just the blatant abusers.

I believe that M$ was given a chance in 1995 to clean up their act. But they haven't done so. Now they should pay the price, since they clearly won't do it on their own.

Give each one of them the rights to all the MS intellectual property and we can all buy one of the companies, and hence the right to use the MS code, with the spare change under our couch cushions. :)

the first thing DOJ should have done was to define what an operating system is, and then define what an application is.

I believe they did this. They even used Microsoft's own definition of "application" taken from their dictionary. Microsoft disputed the definitions though (even their own, go figure).

Windows, Inc. -- Win9x, WinNT, WinCE

Everything Else, Inc. -- err.. everything else...

The point of this being that the OS should be separate from everything. Everybody should have the same access to it. That means development tool makers, application makers, etc. should all become property of another company. That company may choose to divide itself up or sell off some of the apps or tools, but that's up to them. As long as the company with the OS isn't making apps or development software, I'll be ok with it.

I agree that basic services should be provided by the OS. I just don't think they should be unremoveable or unreplaceable. This gets to be a nasty area though, since someone has to decide what a "basic service" is. Slippery slope.

--
Quotes 'R' Us is way cool. 'Least, I think so.

What if the government simply forced them to make only their operating system open source? Well, I think you'll see them doing an about-face on saying IE is part of the OS.

But this would also prevent Microsoft from using their OS dominance to kill off competing products.

99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
101 little bugs in the code....

This has been exactly my point since this whole thing started! Regardless of what you think about where Windows started, or how much Microsoft has "stolen" from other companies to make it, Windows is where it is today because Microsoft worked at it, and tinkered with it, and programmed it until it worked the way you see today.

Microsoft has put time, money and effort into a program that many, many people happen to use (myself included). Sure, it has a lot of flaws, but it has its upside as well. How long did it take me to get VPN working under Linux 2.2? About 2 hours. Under Win 2000 RC2? 2 minutes.

Point being, its a good OS with some good points, and no one, not the government, not private industry, should be able to steal the work of another company. As the previous poster said, should we ruin the jobs, and possibly lives (at least for a short time while they attempt to find other work) of Microsoft employees? Not everyone was personally involved with creating Windows, and, even then, do they deserve to be "punished," just because the worked for MS?

What's a kinet?

To turn your argument on its head, what about the interests of all of Microsoft's competitors who were put out of business or had their businesses severely impacted by (alleged) anti-competitive practices by Microsoft?

The problem is with Monopolies. Anyone who has taken a first-year Econ class has learned that a natural monopoly causes the "free-market" model to break down, resulting in high cost to the consumer.

So government usually steps in when a market creates a natural monopoly. Now, it can do something drastic, like run the business (the U.S. Post Office, for example). It can "regulate" the business (U.S. cable companies). But, it would be best if the market could simply be made back into a naturally competitive market (phone systems, after the invention of microwave transmitters).

I don't believe that open-sourcing MS's operating system would kill them. But I think it would make the NON-OS software market more competitive, since Microsoft would no longer be able to leverage Operating System dominance into dominance in other software markets.

99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
101 little bugs in the code....

Any government involvement in our industry would be detrimental to all of us. The best way to combat Microsoft is by letting market forces evolve.

Do you guys remember when IBM were the Bad Guys? Microsoft didn't require government intervention and controls to eat their lunch. Market forces take over sooner or later. And the government's stupid anti-trust action against IBM was dismissed anyway.

As formidable a threat as Microsoft seems, keep in mind that government action in any way threatens our freedom to innovate and to determine the course of our industry. How would any of us like bureaucrats dictating what code to write, who you can it be sold to? Keep all the encryption restrictions in mind. Now extend that to the rest of the industry. Bad news.

The market exists for us. We created it. We have the right to keep it from trampling us too.

When one company dominates the marketplace, it is not very free. That company acts as a substitute government within its domain. It is in society's best interests to break up monopolies when they become too powerful.
--- To email me convert phonetic username & remove nonkosher meat.

... but the growth of the computer hardware industry in the 1960's might have been significantly stifled if the Feds had given IBM the "freedom to innovate".

True. And despite the consent decree, IBM has done plenty of innovation. Microsoft's claims that its freedom to innovate is being crushed by the lawsuit is BS. They simply won't be allowed to prevent others from innovating and competing. They can still do plenty on their own, just as IBM has. They'll just have to begin competing rather than dictating for a change.

-=-=-=-=-
I remember when Sun really was about open computing

Yeah, On the PC platform you're right. However, IBM is a much larger shop then most people realise. The IBM-trial was about bundling mainframe hardware and software. A part of the IT-world where MS doesn't even exist.

Yeah, On the PC platform you're right. However, IBM is a much larger shop then most people realise. The IBM-trial was about bundling mainframe (os/390) hardware and software. A large part of the IT-world where MS doesn't even exist. Critical software doesn't run on PC's, it runs on sparcs, mainframes, tandem boxes, and as/400 boxes. IMHO, IBM is absolutly more dangerous then Microsoft. Remember, it's not MS anywhere, its IBM who rules the computing world (Mainframes, AS/400's, AIX..) Wake up!

Do you guys remember when IBM were the Bad Guys? Microsoft didn't require government intervention and controls to eat their lunch. Market forces take over sooner or later. And the government's stupid anti-trust action against IBM was dismissed anyway.

Certain monopolies are unavoidable or even desirable due to varying factors.. depending upon what you're talking about, of course. Do you think I'm pissed that I can only choose Southwestern Bell as my local phone company, even though I can choose any long-distance carrier I want? Well, no, because that's what is called a "natural monopoly" (you should try looking that up). It wouldn't exactly make sense for a couple dozen different phone companies to set up their own phone lines all across the fscking city, do you think? The government strictly regulates natural monopolies, and is strongly against the kind of crap MS pulls. It's not natural for there to be a monopoly in the software industry, because they is room for so many different companies, products, etc.

~ Kish

If you have something intelligent to say, you'll log in or get moderated up so I can read it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

As a little aside, Scott McNealy (Sun CEO) said that he didn't think MS should be broken up - he said it could be like those horror movies where you cut the monster into bits each of which turn into a new monster ^-^. Also, he said that breaking up should only really apply when a company has a total monopoly - there is still competition remaining. Last I heard, Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO) was in favour of breaking MS up...

One problem facing the DoJ is that most of their real options involves something that would cause MS's stock price to collapse. Since the US's stock prices have built up to a massive bubble, this could trigger the bubble to burst. However, that bubble is going to burst sooner or later, and the sooner the better really, though it'd be better if it was gentler...

And finally, I can't remember the words exactly, but in the DoJ's proposed Findings of Fact, they said (with regards to MS's attack on Netscape) "First they said they did not shoot the victim, then that everybody shot the victim, then that the victim wasn't harmed" ^-^

One problem facing the DoJ is that most of their real options involves something that would cause MS's stock price to collapse. Since the US's stock prices have built up to a massive bubble, this could trigger the bubble to burst.

Even if M$'s stock were to crash, if some current stock holders have profitted from holding stock in a monopoly, then they have had plenty of warning to get out with their profits, and holding longer is just an example of their instatiable greed to make more profits. I can't see it causes the market as whole to crumble as a M$ breakup will ultimately mean more profits for everyone but M$.

Breaking up MS would result in different comapnies doing different things with no incentive to favor their old fellow travellers over the competition. There is no comaprison to be made here, except maybe on the rapacity of the monopolists in question. Bill has done many scummy things, but he has not yet resorted to dynamite to my knowledge.

You simply don't need the infrastructure that you need with traditional monopoly-prone industries. It's a different ball park, that's all I'm saying.

Sure, and I can assemble lawn mowers in my garage, it doesn't mean I'm competing with John Deere in any meaningful way.

Small software companies tend to survive as well. It's the medium sized companies that get trampled...the small ones seem to come in under the radar. Once they get big enough to notice, they're in trouble.

And this sounds like a working system to you? "You can start a company and sell your product, just don't make TOO much money, or else you're history." Now who's being punished for success? :)

Most small companies can't be considered to have entered the market in a meaningful way. Yet, they survive.

Many people don't want to just survive. They want a shot at the bigtime too. By your own admission and much evidence presented in the trial, they are being denied this opportunity.

Could I start a small cable company in the same way? An oil company?

I'll agree that this is a different situation. You're competing with the distribution networks, marketing, economies of scale, etc., of the big companies (the Internet won't be as much help with physical goods like oil, and it will probably be worse dealing with cable). You're not likely to be able match those things without making a lot of arrangements ahead of time. You'll probably need a large amount of venture capital as well. It would simply depend on what the market looked like and whether the current administration was enforcing anti-trust laws at the time. This would tell the venture capitalists whether you could come in at a competitive price, as well as how dirty the other guys could play and get away with it. You do have certain advantages in other industries though. You won't find network effects occurring naturally in many of them. If I'm selling a new food product, it doesn't have to be compatible with anything. It just has to taste good and I have to be able to produce it in sufficient quantity and get it to market.

What is wanted is for wire protocols & file formats to be properly published. Properly is the key, they need to be well written, complete & timely, this is what needs to be regulated - that M$ does this properly.

The unfair bundling deals should be made illegal as well, but this is commercial stuff that the business people will understand, I fear that they may not understand the problems of standards.

See, what Microsoft does is, they go to these vendors, and they say: "We'll sell you copies of our Win9x operating system cheap. There's only one catch. You have to install a copy onto every machine you make."

So, the vendor takes the deal, the user gets Win9x wether they want it or not, and we wind up with Windows Refund Days...remember that? ;)

Ultimately, cutting out this deal would drive up prices for PC's in the short run. But (hopefully), as Linux and other alternative OS'es come into the fore, Microsoft will be forced to reduce the price of their pre-loaded OS to compete.

$.02 deposited

2) Force M$ to release complete source to all their older products. Then at least SOMEONE could support them, 'cause Redmond sure doesn't.

3) Declare a moratorium on ANY government spending for M$ products until they learn how to play nice. Remember, just like the tobacco industry, the U.S. government is currently spending millions to fight M$ in court, while simultaneously spending billions to license M$ products!!! I find this highly illogical

Disclaimer: Anonymous 'cause I don't want the Redmond Goon Squads to retaliate!

What we really need, is to open the door for a U.S. Government vs. every Tech company Spanish Inquisition. I would suggest that no good will come of opening the door for government regulation of the technology industry.

Sure a case can be made when extremely powerful companies like Microsoft hold 95% of a market, use bloadthroat business practices, and have an image for inferior products, and no innovation.

But the market corrects itself. And it does so much more effeciently than the Government. What is more dangerous, is to set a precedent for Government involvement in the Technology industry.

Could you imaging how many Tech companies would exist tomorrow if the they were faced with all the hurdles Drug, Car, Utility, Phone, and Airline companies face when getting their products to market?

Surprisingly enough, I've found that few of the comments so far on this discussion have involved "screaming". Somehow I have to wonder if you work at Microsoft or think Windows is "way kewl d00d" as compared to.. well.. practically anything else. =P

At any rate, it's not our decision..? Do you really fscking think so?? Of course not, you fool, we're simply voicing our opinions. I can't remember the last time a Slashdotter likened himself (or herself.. or itself, in the case of some *peer*) unto God(dess) Almighty Him(Her)self. Do you?

The government is supposed to step in when a business performs unfair business practices. Regardless of how misguided certain sectors of the U.S. government may be, I can only laugh at those who think that Microsoft has performed in all fairness with regards to its business deals, and believe that Microsoft deserves any pressure applied to it, especially from the DoJ.

~ Kish

If you have something intelligent to say, you'll log in or get moderated up so I can read it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

The options of intrusive government regs or breaking up microsoft aren't appealing. Instead--let them lose the help of government regulation. Take away their intellectual property rights in their operating system software.

If you look at what happened to the baby bells--the breakup of AT&T actually made a fortune for (almost) everyone involved, especially shareholders. And now, almost 15 years later, the baby bells are merging again into a new local monopoly, and at the same time the long distance companies are mergings (a few years ago Sprint+MCI/Worldcom would have been laughable...). On the other hand, direct government regulation wouldn't work for an industry like software. Imagine a hundred people with buckets trying to control a river in case it floods. That would be government regulation of Microsoft.

Much of what Microsoft actually did wrong (contrasted to the actual charges DOJ are bringing in the suit) involves misuse of techonology. You could say it is "borging" small developers and new technologies, then privatizing industry standards to its own proprietary systems to ensure dominance and control. The best way to handle this type of misuse of innovation, misuse of technology, is to deny it patent, copyright, and trademark protection on the technology it misused.

The patents and IP microsoft has are government grants. When they are misused, they can and should be taken away. It's not exactly "open source" but its a start.

-=-=-=-=-
I remember when Sun really was about open computing

Break 'em or not, require documentation on all API's and file formats on all products. Any product discovered to have "undocumented features" should be required to be completely (not just the suspect portions) open-sourced to prove they're not hiding anything.

I don't mind any company keeping their source closed, as long as they play fair. This would let them keep their code IF they stay honest. If they don't, they lose it all. I think even MS management can understand what that means.

Breaking Microsoft up is not the answer. Competition is the answer. Until we have competition in the marketplace, nothing else is going to help.

There was a very well balanced article written by Richard Stallman on this over at linuxtoday.com.

I do think, however, that there needs to be a stronger financial penalty to Microsoft IF Microsoft publishes incorrect documentation.

This documentation would allow the development of competing products. Including furthering the development of WINE. Which would, in turn, lead to the necessary marketplace competition.

Companies like Redhat and Sun microsystems are marketing superior products for Free.

Free as in beer or speech? While you can download RH Linux gratis, they are definitely out there to make a buck, as they are indeed a company. A highly respectable company in light of others (*cough* who were we talking about again? *cough*), but a company nonetheless. Certainly free speech though. Now, Sun.. Free speech? Ah.. I'm a little scared by the SCSL, myself. Not exactly free speech or free beer. So, since everyone knows about Red Hat Linux, but not everyone is a Sun fanatic, you care to give some examples to back yourself up?

It's only a matter of time before microsoft will be forced to go open source, or give their software away free.

Are you smoking crack?

If the government breaks them up, then that will deter Companies Like AOL/Netscape and or Sun or maybe even Redhat getting together and making great things happen (*Definitely* to the consumer's advantage!!).

Great things happen?? What the hell..? AOL.. provides crappy ISP service. Netscape.. provides crappy browser that doesn't even bother to conform to the W3C's standards, opting instead to add more bloat (if a browser can't even render style sheets properly, and is supposed to, it's a piece of shit. pure and simple). Sun.. strives to make money hand over fist through extreme hype and overcapitalized marketing (quite unlike Microsoft, don't you think?). Red Hat.. not so crappy, though I won't say they make the best distro in the world. Good, but so far Debian looks to be the real badass around here. ;)

~ Kish

If you have something intelligent to say, you'll log in or get moderated up so I can read it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

We should not be discussing breaking up Microsoft, but we should be discussing breaking them on the rack!

Although many of us would like to see Microsoft brought down, we want it more as a measure of revenge than because it would be good for the industry. Lets face it, the Open Source movement and similar mutations in the software development status quo are already changing the face of the software industry. Do you really think these things would have had as much impetus to get going if there had not been the spectre of Microsoft looming over everything? It is a simple, and compelling, example of the law of supply and demand in operation.

The problem with regulation is that it affects everyone, not just Microsoft. We will all pay the price for it, and the only winners will be those companies with enough money to take advantage of the new regulations and use them to hold down the competition. In other words regulation will end up with the opposite result from what we want. There is plenty of historical examples of this.

But 'we have to do something', so breaking up the 'monopoly' is a seductive notion. I would argue it is an idea with its own long reaching consequences, many of which will affect everyone for the worst. Not to mention the fact that there is no precedent I know of for breaking up a software company...

I have been thinking about this subject for a long time, and have even written an essay on the subject; An Open Letter to Orrin Hatch. Subtitled "What I would say if I were asked to Testify at the 'Market Power and Structural Change in the Software Industry' Hearings..." I wrote this approximately two weeks before the hearings by the the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the time (as now, although they are evolving) I had strong feelings about the government interfering in the Software Industry in any way, including going after Microsoft for 'Anti-Comptitive Practices'.

Not that I am a Microsoft defender mind you. I worked there for two and half years (as a contractor) and have seen the place from the inside. It is both better, and worse, than its detractors imagine. I know more about them than I really want to. But I needed to make a statement from the point of view of the average software developer just trying to make a living and get the job done for the customer. And I don't think that government intervention will have a positive effect in that regard, any more than I really want to see Microsoft replaced by Sun/AOL, Oracle or even by a resurgent Apple.

Replaced by Linux? Hmm... Now that might just be different story! But, like I said, this is already happening. The software industry, like most complex systems, is healing itself. I say we should let the economics sort themselves out and the best competitor win. I also say the Microsoft is no longer a good competitor because the rules are changing against them, just as they changed (to Microsoft's favor) in 1983...

Jack

P.S. I am working on a new essay, "The Decline and Fall of the Redmondian Empire" which gives more detail on why I think Microsoft, and the other software giants, are becoming uncompetitive dinosaurs. The one thing that might save Microsoft? Either strong regulation, or breaking it up...

It should be http://www.sff.net/people/jac kb/openletter2hatch.html

Jack

This is probably flamebait, so take it for what it's worth.

Does anyone else feel kinda uneasy about this?

The US government (and the US sheeple too) seem to base their idea of what constitutes good policy around revenge. "You step on our toe, we kick your ass." In fact, that's a pretty good summary of US millitary policy for the last 250 years - or at least it sums up how all the battles/wars which the US has fought started. Wars which the US has lost (e.g. 1812 invasion of Canada, Vietnam) are probably remembered differently with hindsight.

Disclaimer: It would be very easy for me to say how proud this makes me feel to be an Australian, but let's be honest. Any nation who adopts the position of "most powerful nation on Earth" (however that is defined at that point in history) would have done the same. That's human nature.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm as concerned about Micros~1 as the next person (and on Slashdot, it's a pretty safe bet as to what the next person thinks about this!), and to say that I'm annoyed as to what they have done to the software industry is an understatement at best. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when the wolves start baying for blood. The only thing I can think of that's worse than a software industry being controlled by the likes of Micros~1 is a software industry being controlled by a lynch mob. I can almost see the pitchforks and flaming torches being handed out as we speak...

Hail, Satan!

There's nothing irrevocable about breaking up MICROS~9 into "baby bill" companies. As others have pointed out, it doesn't achieve the goal of a hands-off remedy, since it would still be necessary prevent them from, say, rolling MS Office into an "OS" product -- or even vice-versa!

Forcing them to open-source the OS, on the other hand, would inherently give everyone a chance to work from common APIs, provide a baseline platform, and would be irrevocable.

The interesting question here is: How would MICROS~9 likely react once their OS products had been made open source? Is it possible at all that it would have a good effect on the company overall?

Revoke their charter. Or, to only imprison them, revoke their charter temporarily. Or take their profits for a few years (and give to whom?).

They're the equivalent of a serial killer, as far as businesses are concerned. Why shouldn't we treat them like one? At the least, we need to remove any means they have of hurting others. How can we do that?

It worked before!

Well first of all, hit 'em with big fines if they're really found guilty, and maybe file criminal charges against some of the individual people who committed criminal acts (e.g. perjury, fraud, etc). That much should be obvious. I want Gates' next book to tell all about his prison assrape experiences. ;-)

But the real long-term solution is something that the government simply does not have the ability (or the right) to do: give consumers a clue. Windoze is Microsoft's property. It is not a general-purpose operating system, and 3rd parties have no guarantees that they will be able to sell products that work with it. They're just like Nintendo. I don't see anyone seriously complaining about not being able to sell Nintendo apps. Even if Nintendo had 90% of the game console market, it wouldn't be right for the govt to insist that they open up.

Microsoft is only a monopoly if their customers (not their competitors) let them be one. Joe Consumer should realize that if he buys a MS OS, he will also have to rent MS apps on a biannual cycle. Understand that, and maybe you'll think twice about committing yourself to that mess.

The worst thing we can do is regulate Microsoft and Windoze, because that will "legitamize" them and make them a Real USA standard instead of just a defacto one. That would be bad, because they simply just aren't worthy. The phone company was at least a natural entity that provided a useful product. Gates is just successful con man.

Sometimes the simple solutions are the best ones.

--
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.

Boy, I really hate MS don't I?

"Sore wa HIMITSU desu!" -Xelloss

The government is contributing to the problem themselves. Two points follow, the second is more important.

1.) Government agencies requiring the usage of the most common commercial software (or even hardware). It's hard to compete when your competiotion has 80% market share *and* an ensured government market.

2.) Usage in public schools. A lot of public schools wont consider anything but Microsoft/Intel solutions, and actually teach classes on the usage of Microsoft Office/Visual C++/Etc. It should be illegal for public schools to teach the useage of commercial software (Including the Windows O/S) when there are good, free alternitives avalible.

If Microsoft (or whatever other commercial software) is being taught as the only choice to a captive audience, is this a good thing?
...sorry if this is a duplicate...
-------- The act of censorship is alwas worse than whatever is being censored. -Chandon Seldon

And if we, the people, don't like black or jews, we can make being black or jewish illegal too? They tried that in Germany. Didn't work out too well. The problem with the tyranny of the majority is that the majority tends to be easily mislead into making the wrong choices.

The solution to the MICROS~1 problem is easy: organize a worldwide boycott of MICROS~1 products, including a moratorium on government purchases. If the government doesn't approve of MICROS~1's behaviour, they should stop subsidizing it!!!!!

--
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot

The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is happening anyway. The latter would mainly help others proprietary application developers compete, which would only offer users alternative ways to let go of their freedom.

1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.

One idea that a friend had was this: Rescind all of the government supported intellectual property for their operating system products. They haven't played nice with the limited monopoly they've been granted via IP (intellectual property) law, so deny them all of its protections.

I think this sets a good precendent for a lot of companies. It forcibly drives home the fact the IP is not a natural right, but a government sponsored right, and it denies Microsoft a chief advantage.

So, in closing, I say, deny them all of their current IP rights, and on any new IP created for the next 1-2 years. That's a penalty that will hit them where it hurts, will provide a huge benefit to everyone else, and sets a good precedent in IP law.

I used to favor breakup, but now I'm leaning toward a more radical and direct solution:

• Require all system vendors to offer a minimum of two choices of preloaded OS, if they offer any preloads at all. The different OS preloads must be on equal terms--same level of support, same hardware supported, and so on. Only the price difference in the base OS can be passed along.
• Require all hardware that comes with specialized drivers to provide drivers for a minimum of two OS's. As an alternative, they could publish complete specifications of their device's interface. Any provided drivers must provide equivalent functionality.
• Require all software that communicates with other software (like over a network) to be accompanied by complete and accurate specifications of the protocols and formats involved in that communication.
• Require all software that saves data in files to be accompanied by a complete and accurate description of the formats of those files.

The trouble we're having with Microsoft is only a symptom of a larger problem. If not them, then somebody else would be doing it.

I don't like the idea of more laws, but it seems clear that the current laws have holes in them. If the above regs are applied to Microsoft as well as all of their competitors, it will deal with their abuses nicely. No need to single anyone out.

Oh, what's that you say--MS are the only ones who would be affected by the preload and driver thing? Awww, too bad.

See www.moraldefense.com

But first, I agree that Microsoft should be broken up. Right now it's too easy for them to use the ubiquity of Office to prop up Windows sales; it's too easy for them to refuse to license VBA to a potential Office competitor; it's too easy for them to design Windows to give an unfair advantage to their own applications software--it's a self-reinforcing web of schemes to prop up Windows forever, giving them the ability, maybe, to dictate things to the world like The One True personal secure e-banking client. Which no one can really interoperate with unless they pay Microsoft.

Breaking them up functionally would at least cut the links of that web, leading perhaps to things like Office for Linux. It wouldn't necessarily prevent the OS or Office companies from abusing their respective monopolies--so maybe Microsoft should be split into clones--but it's a minimally invasive start.

Anyway. People have suggested that Microsoft be forced to publish their file formats and other interoperability standards.

I think that's a bad idea. How could you legislate it? How would you define which file formats are important enough to require opening? Legalistically! But then twenty years from now, people will roll their eyes at what people thought a 'file format' was way back in 2000, and the rigid rule will be seen as hampering technology. And then there will be a rush to change the law, and software companies will point to how important they are to the economy, and how they should have input; they will be given input, and the rule will end up a stick they use to beat each other over the head with.

Bah.

Instead, we need to let open standards acquire the standing of common-sense morality. Really.

I mean, the evil of closed standards is a given in the academic/old-school Internet/open-source world, but not always in the world at large. We think we have reasons to see it that way; we believe that closed standards invite abuse. Much of the rest of the world hasn't had reason to care--until computing threatened to upset everything, mostly via the Internet.

When society organized itself in new ways in the past, new moral orders came into being. When municipal governments became large and bureaucratic in the Industrial Revolution, people realized that there was 'nepotism'--something as natural as doing favors for your family could become a corrupting influence. When the printing press came around, people realized that somebody had to retain the mostly exclusive right to copy texts. We take those principles for granted now, but they had to be invented.

Hopefully by the time computing is really ubiquitous, people will have realized that society can't stand for the corrupting influence of closed standards, and using closed standards will be come to be seen as a bit sleazy and antisocial. I hope. (And then open standards will become a legal principle, taught in law schools!)

I don't mean we should just sit around and hope that society changes in this way. More that Stallman and the GNU folks may deserve a lot of credit for creating the GPL, which allowed a particular part of the community of people who believe in open standards to get together, become strong, and to one day prove to the larger world that open standards really are an important social good.

Or not. At least I hope I don't sound too much like Mr. Katz with my handwaving generalities and talk of sweeping social change.

Rich K

Another thought. Actually, I think there's something to the idea that open computing standards should become a principle taught in law schools. A law requiring open file formats or whatever would be clumsy and stupid and observed in the breach. A legal principle gets debated intelligently by law students and judges and in law journals and becomes part of legal reasoning. You could then sue somebody for having closed standards, without Congress or regulatory bureaucrats having gotten their grubby hands in the mix! I think.

It seems to me that the biggest problem with Microsoft is that it can use Windows as a bargaining chip to muscle into markets (or muscle others out of them). Instead of breaking up the company or creating complex regulation with ill-defined statements about how Windows can be developed, why not simply take away the ability to use Windows as a weapon?

Simply put, force Microsoft to use standard, publicized pricing and force them to sell Windows to anyone who wants to buy it. No cutting special pricing deals. No denying Windows to a manufacturer. Microsoft can set the bulk pricing rates but they have to charge everybody the same rates for the same quantities.

This seems like it would be easy to legally describe, it would be simple to enforce, and it would take away the ability for Microsoft to use Windows as a weapon. It wouldn't stop them from adding features to Windows, but I don't think that's desirable or necessary to achieve the major goals of this lawsuit.

When I first read of a possible MS breakup, I panicked. The first thought in my head: "National Operating System." Think about it.

If the giant from Redmond were indeed split, into say, an OS branch and an applications branch, this would be the government's way of acknowledging that Windows is in complete dominance of our computing systems. The public will see it this way as well. Private sector would of course standardize on an OS with the government's blessing.

I see a future where corporations and middle-of-the-roaders flock to the newly blessed baby MS. Linux will stay in the musty world of hackers and script kiddies, its aspirations of greatness shriveled like a baby human power-pod plucked too soon from the robotic nuturing vine.

Take the red pill, folks. Come to the real world, where market forces should be allowed to shape the future, not unnatural government intervention.
Tetris rules.

--

My other computer is a Palm.

The DOJ never tells Bill G what the end result of his guilt is supposed to be.

Then, at some point well after the case has ended, his head disappears suddenly -- splut! -- in a wet pink cloud. Nine hundred meters away, the ex-SEAL sniper ejects the spent .50 cal brass from his Barrett M-82A1, removes the custom-made supressor, breaks down the weapon, loads it back into the back of his stolen van, and drives away whistling.

Sorry. I forgot my Prozac this morning, and a long-gone laid-off programmer left me toxic waste to clean up for a system reference manual.

This case has always been far more than just an anti-trust lawsuit. It's a symptom of the fact that laws and regulations designed for early twentieth century manufacturing industry are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Breaking up companies could work in the old economic system since it created rivals that would be forced to compete directly. Products were comparatively simple - you could pretty much guarantee to sell more by making things better or cheaper. Hence competition drives down prices, increases quality and everybody wins.

But that doesn't work in today's world. Value is created by networks, communications and relationships. Price and quality are far less important than convenience and compatibility. Microsoft hold on to their market power by the network externality effect - they simply make it extremely inconvenient to use anyone else's product. Consequently, most of the sheep simply stick with Microsoft and there's never sufficient incentive for other firms to create competing software. Microsoft rakes in the big cash, while other firms scrabble around for niches. Free Market? I think not.

Whether or not to break up Microsoft is a side issue. What's needed is a rethink of how competition law should be structured. A few ideas:

As a final thought, just think of what would happen if Microsoft actually won. They'd then have carte blanche to launch into all the anti-competitive practices they'd love to use but haven't been able to so far because of the lawsuit. Penalties for hardware manufacturers who make drivers for other operating systems. Terminator software that self-destructs after six months after flashing up a pleasant invitation to upgrade. Three hundred gigabytes of patented "features". Word for Windows Markup Language.

Is that where you want to be tomorrow? Even if you don't like the DOJ, you have to give them credit for keeping MS on their toes.