I can’t believe I didn’t see a thread on this topic…I might’ve missed it, but I checked around and couldn’t find it. Anyways…Yes, I know a judge ruled that Microsoft is guilty of all but 3 or so of the monopoly charges against them. What I want to know is your opinion of whether it is A) Indeed a monopoly, and B) If so, what should the ramifications be?
Personally, I like Microsoft products. I don’t have all the system unstability everyone is always talking about, and who gives a rats a** if they didn’t ship Netscape with Windows…Internet Explorer is, in my opinion, a far superior browser (Ironically, Microsoft wasn’t found guilty on this charge, which happened to be the original charge).
I don’t think Microsoft had any sort of monopoly powers in the market. Yes, they were highly influencial, but that was all because they made a superior product. The reason there is no major competitor to Windows 98 (Linux and Unix products compete more directly with Windows NT/2000) is because Windows 98 is BETTER than anything else that has been developed. It’s not because they “intimidated” competitors from making alternative operating systems. Compare it to Intel vs. AMD…Intel was once the only big boy in the processor industry. AMD rose from obscurity and now produces not only competitive chips to the PIII, but better chips as well. Why, then, do people think Microsoft prevented other companies from developing a good OS? Intel tried to keep AMD out of a good market share, and it failed…there’s no reason why another company couldn’t do the same thing to Microsoft.
Anyways, I’ve said enough for now. Join in with your thoughts, and bring in facts to support them (and please, no flaming)
I find evidence of their monopoly in your post itself:
How much opportunity have you had to sample other products, like Mac, BeOS, Linux, or OS/2? You seem to be unaware of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different platforms, which speaks directly to the point that there is an entry barrier to the market - the dominance of Microsoft has prevented you from a fair sampling of what’s available.
Windows 98 is not better than anything developed. Mac and BeOS have better user interfaces and are simpler to use. Those two and Linux are more stable than Windows 98 (I’ve used all of them quite a bit, so my comparison comes from a reasonable amount of experience with each).
Part of the monopoly charge against Microsoft is that they used this platform dominance to extend their dominance in applications: remember Wordperfect? It’s as good a word processor as Word, but it’s simply gone from the market because it makes more sense to buy Office, which is tightly integrated with the OS and thus offers features that WordPerfect can’t, because Corel was excluded from the means to develop them because they were competitors. So, people like you, for whom Windows is basically the only option in an OS, had Office half sold to them already, long before considering an alternative like WordPerfect.
As for Netscape, it was a better browser than Internet Explorer until version 4 came along. IE wasn’t noticeably better than Netscape until version 5. Antitrust charges on this issue arise from Microsoft approaching Netscape and offering to divide the market (illegal in and of itself), under threat of having their “air supply” cut off, meaning just that Microsoft would bundle IE with the OS, cutting off Netscape’s access to the market. Once again, buy the OS, buy halfway into a piece of software before ever considering alternatives.
Have you ever used a file manager other than Windows Explorer? I know that there are several other, better file managers out there because I looked into them, and use them personally. But I’m that kind of guy: I like to know what’s available. The average consumer who is uninterested in the machine itself, and wants only email, the web, and the office applications, never sees the alternatives because there’s no reason to look - Windows has everything they need, and everyone else is using it anyways.
Do you run antivirus software at work? You probably should, since Microsoft Office makes possible a whole family of very damaging virus (e.g., Melissa, Pretty Park) that other OSes/application suites don’t. Would Microsoft be able to make a profit on a set of applications that open up new worlds of viruses in an atmosphere that was truly competitive?
We’re in a similar situation at work, where I’m the I.S. manager. We run NT 4 with the whole BackOffice suite, and we can’t seriously consider alternatives because of the integration between BackOffice and NT. Anything else (Sendmail instead of Exchange, Apache instead of IIS, Oracle or DB2 instead of SQL Server 7.0) can’t be seriously considered because none of them are integrated as closely with NT as Microsoft products. While that makes Microsoft products potentially superior in a technical sense, in a business sense it constitutes the same sort of product bundling that is illegal for a monopoly.
Lawrence Lessig, the special master appointed by Judge Jackson, pointed out more subtle dangers in technology monopolies of which Microsoft is certainly guilty. When a single company dominates the technospere (the environment of available technology, from which non-expert users like yourself select products), there are standards and initiatives that never see the light of day, or are impaired before they do. Microsoft’s strategy of embracing and extending Java certainly slowed its development. On the web, HTML, XML, and Cascading Style Sheets have all been delayed as open standards because Microsoft failed to implement them or implemented them with its own proprietary additions that undermined the idea of an open standard to which all parties in the market could adhere. Again, something that hurts only the company to do unless they’re a monopoly, in which case the whole technosphere is damaged.
I can’t get into the business bullying of which Microsoft is guilty because I don’t remember the details from the trial, but a large part of the reason that Jackson found Microsoft guilty of monopoly abuses is their practice of licence freeze-outs and punitive pricing for Windows, something that wouldn’t be possible if they weren’t a monopoly. Lots of CEOs testified that they had to bundle Microsoft’s products with theirs, or face higher licencing fees for access to the OS or to the APIs they needed to make software for the Windows platform.
My personal example is development tools: for languages like perl or python or C/C++ or Java, I can download the necessary software and their reference material for free. For Visual Basic, I have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for the CDs, to get their libraries or compilers or the reference material needed to use it so that I get the full benefit of its integration with the OS.
One thing that’s come to light during this whole trial is the surprising fervor with which some users defend Microsoft’s right to be a monopoly. They seem to forget that they’re the ones hurt by it, in terms of higher costs ($109 to upgrade from 95 to 98?!? I’ve yet to see any difference except the ability to manipulate menu items in the start bar by mouse) and technologies that are unavailable to them because Microsoft isn’t pushing them. The whole trial will benefit you, the consumer; it already has in the proliferation of Linux and the publicity given to software alternatives.
When you’re standing in line, about to hand over $150 for the Windows 2000 upgrade, think about the fact that you never seriously considered anything else, and wonder why. I bought a car eight months ago, and spent a month comparing four or five different models, eventually choosing one I thought was best. Can you do that with Windows? How many better options are out there that you never considered because you weren’t aware of them?
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
I find evidence of their monopoly in your post itself:
How much opportunity have you had to sample other products, like Mac, BeOS, Linux, or OS/2? You seem to be unaware of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different platforms, which speaks directly to the point that there is an entry barrier to the market - the dominance of Microsoft has prevented you from a fair sampling of what’s available.
Windows 98 is not better than anything developed. Mac and BeOS have better user interfaces and are simpler to use. Those two and Linux are more stable than Windows 98 (I’ve used all of them quite a bit, so my comparison comes from a reasonable amount of experience with each).
Part of the monopoly charge against Microsoft is that they used this platform dominance to extend their dominance in applications: remember Wordperfect? It’s as good a word processor as Word, but it’s simply gone from the market because it makes more sense to buy Office, which is tightly integrated with the OS and thus offers features that WordPerfect can’t, because Corel was excluded from the means to develop them because they were competitors. So, people like you, for whom Windows is basically the only option in an OS, had Office half sold to them already, long before considering an alternative like WordPerfect.
As for Netscape, it was a better browser than Internet Explorer until version 4 came along. IE wasn’t noticeably better than Netscape until version 5. Antitrust charges on this issue arise from Microsoft approaching Netscape and offering to divide the market (illegal in and of itself), under threat of having their “air supply” cut off, meaning just that Microsoft would bundle IE with the OS, cutting off Netscape’s access to the market. Once again, buy the OS, buy halfway into a piece of software before ever considering alternatives.
Have you ever used a file manager other than Windows Explorer? I know that there are several other, better file managers out there because I looked into them, and use them personally. But I’m that kind of guy: I like to know what’s available. The average consumer who is uninterested in the machine itself, and wants only email, the web, and the office applications, never sees the alternatives because there’s no reason to look - Windows has everything they need, and everyone else is using it anyways.
Do you run antivirus software at work? You probably should, since Microsoft Office makes possible a whole family of very damaging virus (e.g., Melissa, Pretty Park) that other OSes/application suites don’t. Would Microsoft be able to make a profit on a set of applications that open up new worlds of viruses in an atmosphere that was truly competitive?
We’re in a similar situation at work, where I’m the I.S. manager. We run NT 4 with the whole BackOffice suite, and we can’t seriously consider alternatives because of the integration between BackOffice and NT. Anything else (Sendmail instead of Exchange, Apache instead of IIS, Oracle or DB2 instead of SQL Server 7.0) can’t be seriously considered because none of them are integrated as closely with NT as Microsoft products. While that makes Microsoft products potentially superior in a technical sense, in a business sense it constitutes the same sort of product bundling that is illegal for a monopoly.
Lawrence Lessig, the special master appointed by Judge Jackson, pointed out more subtle dangers in technology monopolies of which Microsoft is certainly guilty. When a single company dominates the technospere (the environment of available technology, from which non-expert users like yourself select products), there are standards and initiatives that never see the light of day, or are impaired before they do. Microsoft’s strategy of embracing and extending Java certainly slowed its development. On the web, HTML, XML, and Cascading Style Sheets have all been delayed as open standards because Microsoft failed to implement them or implemented them with its own proprietary additions that undermined the idea of an open standard to which all parties in the market could adhere. Again, something that hurts only the company to do unless they’re a monopoly, in which case the whole technosphere is damaged.
I can’t get into the business bullying of which Microsoft is guilty because I don’t remember the details from the trial, but a large part of the reason that Jackson found Microsoft guilty of monopoly abuses is their practice of licence freeze-outs and punitive pricing for Windows, something that wouldn’t be possible if they weren’t a monopoly. Lots of CEOs testified that they had to bundle Microsoft’s products with theirs, or face higher licencing fees for access to the OS or to the APIs they needed to make software for the Windows platform.
My personal example is development tools: for languages like perl or python or C/C++ or Java, I can download the necessary software and their reference material for free. For Visual Basic, I have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for the CDs, to get their libraries or compilers or the reference material needed to use it so that I get the full benefit of its integration with the OS.
One thing that’s come to light during this whole trial is the surprising fervor with which some users defend Microsoft’s right to be a monopoly. They seem to forget that they’re the ones hurt by it, in terms of higher costs ($109 to upgrade from 95 to 98?!? I’ve yet to see any difference except the ability to manipulate menu items in the start bar by mouse) and technologies that are unavailable to them because Microsoft isn’t pushing them. The whole trial will benefit you, the consumer; it already has in the proliferation of Linux and the publicity given to software alternatives.
When you’re standing in line, about to hand over $150 for the Windows 2000 upgrade, think about the fact that you never seriously considered anything else, and wonder why. I bought a car eight months ago, and spent a month comparing four or five different models, eventually choosing one I thought was best. Can you do that with Windows? How many better options are out there that you never considered because you weren’t aware of them?
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Amazingly, that second post occurred twenty minutes after the first, through various errors in hitting “back”, and “refresh” while apparently on the page following hitting submit. Moderators, please correct.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Microsoft has been guilty of monopolistic practices for years; current charges are no anomaly.
In the early 1990s, all my PC using friends ran MS-DOS; they nearly all used WordPerfect as their word processor–alhtough Microsoft had a version of Word for DOS, Word was considered a Mac word processor. Their spreadsheet was Lotus 1-2-3 rather than Microsoft Excel by a ratio of something like 10-1, although again a DOS version of Excel did exist.
Microsoft leveraged their insider knowledge of Windows to make sure Word for Windows and Excel for Windows would be ready and available and featured prominently in all demonstrations of Windows.
To be sure, Lotus and WordPerfect Corp. missed the bus in part through their own lackadaisical disinterest, but many of the things that made Windows 3.0 different from Windows 2.0 were not openly shared (i.e., the raw APIs generally were, but not the OS programmers’ vantage point that made it obvious how much more compelling an OS it was going to be). Similarly, the marketing and bundling plans for doing an all-out push for getting everyone on Windows was known within Microsoft in a way that it was not known outside the company.
Couple years later, Microsoft Office rules the PC and Lotus and WordPerfect are suffering major market share erosion.
Microsoft Corporation only takes us much of my, or your, money as I, or you, decide to give them. The government decides they aren’t playing fair, and wants to bust them up.
Major League Baseball takes my money, and yours, left and right in the form of taxes for new stadiums, the revenue from which goes into their pockets and not to you. Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption from the United States Congress.
I would like to point out that the primary reason that Microsoft is being hassled is because Bill Gates donates money to conservative causes. If he donated money to Al Gore’s campaign, he woulnd’t have any problems. Is this justice? Hell no.
Microsoft makes all of its’ products work for Windows because WINDOWS IS ITS’ PRIMARY PRODUCT. Microsoft was BUILT on WIndows. Hansel is talking like Microsoft should deliberately make its’ products incompatible with each other, which is, of course, just stupid.
Most of the talk going on about Microsoft and Windows is left-wing propaganda and should be taken with a grain of salt. Sure there are operating systems that are more stable out there… but they’re also less compatible with products on the market. Don’t even talk about MacIntosh… they’re still barely compatible with 30% of the software on the market. Windows is the superior product for the average Joe… Linux and Unix are for specialized users, and, so far, Macs are only good for heavy-duty video and/or graphic editing (of course, they ARE improving in terms of compatibility… once they improve in that regard, expect Macs to dominate the market).
I don’t think that tax money should go for stadiums, when players are earning the salaries they do, and striking for more because the owners can spare it.
However, the baseball analogy doesn’t work because there’s a quality of life argument to be made for buying a team a stadium, or cutting them other tax breaks.
BTW, it wasn’t the government that decided they weren’t playing fair, it was a judge in a court of law, after a long trial in which Microsoft put every foot wrong.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Yeah, but the Justice Department decided that first, but their opinion didn’t really mean anything official until they convinced the judge.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith
Well, first off, I have used BeOS, and it doesn’t have easier user interface. It’s just about the same as Win98. I’ve used several forms of Linux and Unix, and they are more stable because they are customizable to do one or two specific tasks…Win98 and Win NT/2000 can perform just about any task. Windows OSes also have far more complicated code…it is physically impossible for anyone to write a code that complex without a ton of errors (I’m surprised there aren’t even more glitches in Windows). Win95 is outdated…it is incompatible with USB, and most new hardware models as well as AGP (Until you d/l the service packs, but 95 is still far more unstable than Win98)
I’ve used Wordperfect, almost every version…it was once good, but then MS developed Word97, and there went Wordperfect’s competitiveness. New versions of Wordperfect SUCK.
I’ve used Macs…I like their new OS, but like SPOOFE said, their not quite compatible enough yet (hopefully they will gain more compatibility in the market…I would love to have a G4 that could run all the PC software I have).
There is plenty of entrance space to the OS market…I know a lot of people dying to have an OS with the versatility of Windows with the stability of Unix/Linux. Someone just has to do it.
About the judge and left-wing politics…why do you think they filed their court case to that specific court? They filed their case to a judge that left-wing leanings! That’s the whole thing…politics plays a role in everything that happens in this country, even the Justice department.
Now, I don’t just want your opinions of whether MS is a monopoly or not (a judge did find it guilty, after all, so it MUST be a monopoly, right?), but I also want to know what you think the penalties should be.
I, for one, wouldn’t consider the “Microsoft Monopoly” case to be such a farce if it was a fair deal… that is, if every company was treated the same way. But they’re not. But that’s a different argument.
I would attribute all the small-company complaints about Microsoft to the natural human tendency to want to avoid blame for ones’ own mistakes. To wit: Small(er) companies create a product that, to be blunt, is kinda crappy. They can do two things… accept their mistakes and rectify their mistakes themselves, or blame someone else and get a pretty penny from someone who made a good product. Guess which path was chosen?
I used to love Wordperfect. I prefer Wordperfect 7 over Word 98, and in some ways over Word 2000. But Wordperfect 9 sucks. It has a poorly constructed interface and accessibility, doesn’t offer any really new developments over the previous products… basically, Corel went downhill in terms of product creation. It must be Microsoft’s fault, right?
I also used to prefer Netscape over Internet Explorer. Even in the 4.0 versions of each. My preference over either had nothing to do with what was included with WIndows 98 and what wasn’t… I now prefer IE 5.0 over Netscape because, frankly, Netscape really hasn’t done all that much to improve their product.
We have all these Justice Department officials telling US (consumers) what WE want, instead of the other way around. There’s a small group of renegades who prefer their Linux (or Unix, or whatever) for their specialized tasks… but in terms of the average consumer, Windows delivers what is needed.
In terms of being a monopoly… there hasn’t been a real monopoly on anything in this country since the days of Standard Oil, so the Justice Department is really just out to get some attention. Anybody who knows their late-1800s/early-1900s history would know that, as far as a monopoly goes, Microsoft is as soft as Charmin.
I don’t know where the perception of a left/right split came from: Judge Jackson is not known as a left-leaning judge, and the Justice department prosecuted or investigated companies under the Reagan and Bush administrations (IBM comes to mind).
I’m not suggesting that Microsoft create incompatibilities between its applications and its OS; I’ve already said that, from a technical perspective, it’s usually better. I’m suggesting that, given that Microsoft is an <I>abusive</I> monopoly (it’s the abusiveness that’s illegal), the market for OSes and applications has been demonstrably harmed, as was established in Jackson’s findings of fact. Frankly, I don’t understand the defenders of Microsoft in this case, since it’s the consumer who’s harmed by monopolies, and the benefits of an effective remedy will directly benefit consumers in terms of lower prices and a wider selection.
I wasn’t aware that it was a left-wing thing to increase competitiveness in the market.
Spoof, how would you have all companies treated the same as Microsoft? Many dominant companies have had to pass the scrutiny of the Justice department - Intel, AT&T, Boeing, and IBM to name a few. There’s no liberal vendetta going on here.
The Justice department isn’t telling you what you want. It’s telling Microsoft not to use its monopoly position to prevent you from seeing alternatives to its software.
As for a lack of monopolies since the late 19th century, wasn’t AT&T a monopoly? It’s widely held these days that the internet couldn’t have happened without AT&T’s breakup, and that the telecommunications revolution America is enjoying so much is a direct result of that breakup. If it hadn’t happened, we’d have the best circa 1979 copper-wire telephone system in the world. Because it did happen, we have lower long distance, fiber replacing copper, DSL, and the internet.
Strikes me as a good thing, overall.
As for penalties, I think a consent decree will be insufficient, Microsoft having already demonstrated its contempt for such things. A structural remedy is necessary; that doesn’t mean, however, that a breakup is necessary. Read Robert Cringely’s article and let me know what you think. The “Chinese Wall” actually seems like the best idea to me.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
I read the article, and I agree: the Chinese Wall idea is the best. Most of the ideas are ok, but rather basic and leaves a lot of room for manipulation. The Chinese Wall would keep Microsoft from having further monopolistic powers.
In my own opinion, MS was not a monopoly with just Windows. However, by integrating Windows and it’s Office products, for example, it infringes on parts of the anti-trust laws. However, those very same ant-trust laws seem a little outdated to me, and probably need reforms to it.
It’s arguable whether they had a desktop monopoly with the OS; I think they did, since 90%+ means that the average user and the average corporation don’t consider anything else, since nothing else looks viable. It wasn’t written in stone that Windows would be the de facto OS for our foreseeable lifetimes, but it’s a good bet that they would have been that dominant for years to come.
What decides the issue for me is that they were able to be abusive to their customers at 90%+. As Cringely said, a vendor who can abuse his customers and still get them to pay higher prices is a monopoly. The largest part of the antitrust suit was demonstrated by Microsoft’s supposed allies describing licence freeze-outs and punitive pricing.
It’s an interesting question, whether or not the old standard of a monopoly should apply. What Microsoft said about being possible being unthroned tomorrow is true: IBM never suffered for their antitrust suit because, before the suit was decided, Microsoft and the clone wars unseated them as the dominant hardware and software manufacturer in the world. On the other hand, it seems unwise to me to invalidate our laws just because they seem innappropriate to the occasion. It’s obvious that the circumstances of the technology market are very different than the oil market a hundred years ago or the telephone market twenty-five years ago. Does lack of familiarity with the dynamics of it mean that we abdicate our right to affect it for our own good?
Let me put a question to you: assume Microsoft is broken up, or some other significant structural remedy put in place. Will the pragmatic effect on the marketplace be beneficial or not?
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
I don’t know a proper answer to that question…I’m not as good in the stockmarket as I probably should be…but I do know that MS stock is very twitchy right now, and a breakup or something similar will be devastating to MS. This, in turn, can bring about doubts of other large corporations…after all, once this debacle is over, the Justice Department may start looking for a new target (AOL, maybe?). Anyways, if punishment is too harsh, you can be sure MS stockholders will dump. If they’re not harsh enough, MS may still retain power in the market.
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary says:
monopoly (blah blah blah, stuff about root words, parts of speech, etc.):
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market, or control that makes possible the fixing of prices and the virtual elimination of free competition.
an exclusive privilege of engaging in a particular business or providing a service granted by a ruler or by the state.
exclusive possession or control of something.
anything which is the subject of a monopoly; as, salt and precious metals were monopolies of the crown of Germany.
a combination or company that has a monopoly.
Well, now 2 and 4 don’t really apply, and 5 is what the argument is about… that leaves 1 and 3…
Does Microsoft have exclusive control? To the extent that they can fix prices? Hell no. If they doubled the price for Windows, their sales would slump. While their competition is small, IT’S STILL COMPETITION! Microsoft wasn’t trying to bump their competition off, they were improving their own products. Unfortunately for Netscape or Corel, they could keep up the the improving marketplace. Their fault, not Microsoft’s.
Does Microsoft have exclusive control of a product? Hell no. Hansel’s own statistics prove otherwise. Microsoft is extremely popular because it’s versatile software. However, there are parts of the market that require specialized software that Microsoft doesn’t produce, namely Linux/Unix or the MacOS.
So, Hansel, this isn’t about changing the laws… it’s about changing the English language. And the meaning of the word “monopoly” would have to be changed in order for Microsoft to BE a monopoly.
What you’re looking for, Spoofe, is a perfect monopoly. No, Microsoft isn’t a perfect monopoly, but the point that was proven during the trial is that they’re an effective monopoly. One of the points that was demonstrated was that Microsoft was charging $90 for Windows95, when their own marketing studies showed $49 to be the optimal price point.
Windows 98 was nothing more than bug fixes for Windows 95 plus new drivers that you could download for free off the Web anyway. When it was introduced, the upgrade to it was $109. Last time I checked, the upgrade to Windows 2000 was $150, $200+ for the full system. This in a market where their supposed competitors are offering OSes for free. Nope, no monopoly here; no price fixing based on market share here.
As for bumping off their competition, maybe you missed the comments of Microsoft’s executives who used the phrase “cut off your air supply” with Netscape when they were offering to divide the market with them (illegal in itself).
You keep talking about how versatile Windows is, and how specialized Mac and the Unices are, as if they’re behind Microsoft in development somehow; I don’t get this. Anything that needs to be done in an office can be done about as easily on Linux or a Mac as on windows (I worked in an office with an all Mac environment, and no one missed any particular software). For what 90% of people using computers do, any of the three would do fine.
C’mon, answer my question: will consumers benefit or suffer from a breakup? Analysts are already talking about how to make money in stocks off of a breakup; some are saying that a breakup will actually be better all around for investors. Sure there’s a large correction going on in tech stocks, but that’s ultimately a good thing. Imagine your stock splitting three ways between three new companies.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
To take that thought about a three way split a step further, what do you suppose the result will be with regards to Microsoft?
My guess is that instead of one huge industry leader that does OS, Browsers and Office suites (putting the BackOffice software aside for a moment), it will become three huge industry leaders each doing OS, Browser/Internet, Office suites respectively.
What will have been accomplished by this split? Microsoft A, B and C will still be the leaders in each one of those disciplines by equally huge margins from their first day of operation.
How will the gov’t prevent Microsoft A, B and C from signing agreements of co-operation and continue to tightly integrate their software? I’d say that forbiding them to do so would be a monumental transgression. As far as I know, you cannot legislate which companies one can and cannot enter a business agreement with. The break up of Ma Bell into Baby Bells has illustrated this point very clearly. All the not-so-baby bells are busy buying each other up as fast as they can and it is simply a matter of time before there are 1 or 2 bells running the show again. The only difference will be the names of the members on the board of trustees.
Back to Microsoft. If they do break up Microsoft into A, B and C, I doubt very much that the cost of Windows 200x will go down. I doubt the Office Suites will drop in price. I’m pretty sure that IE will not be “free” anymore. So the net effect to the consumer is that what they have now will cost them more after the break-up. So who is this breakup going to benefit?
On a personal note, I believe this entire trial is simply a lesson for Bill for not playing ball with the congressmen and senators who sat around for years waiting for a handout. They simply got tired of watching Microsoft coffers fill with wealth and they finally found a way of punishing Bill for neglecting them for so long.
Anybody who thinks this case was not politically motivated is simply delluding themselves. I could care less about Clinton or Gore or McCain or Bush. I’m not American. But when you hear one party leader say that if he were the president, then he would order this entire ordeal to be shut down, it’s clear to me that this has precious little to do with monopoly busting and everything to do with making a name for one self in the political arena. (Regardless of whether or not that promise is carried out.)
Which brings me to another point. If by some chance the republicans win the next election and they follow up on their promise to cease and desist from persecuting Microsoft, all these DOJ and Judge Jackson comments will amount to nothing but a tempest in a tea cup.
If Gore happens to win, he just might do likewise.