# Microsoft monopoly...yay or nay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2000, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-monopoly-yay-or-nay/18065 "2000-04-22T15:38:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2000, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-monopoly-yay-or-nay/18065/21 "2000-04-26T05:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. At first, but a big part of their competitive advantage will be gone, insofar as each company will no longer be privy to the plans and strategies of the other parts. The Office company will get the new APIs at the same time as Corel, Netscape, and everyone else, putting everyone on an equal footing for developing their product; rather, it leaves it up to the programmers and business leaders at each company to make a better product, rather than relying on a head start from a brother department. > [@](#): > > How will the gov’t prevent Microsoft A, B and C from signing agreements of co-operation and continue to tightly integrate their software? …As far as I know, you cannot legislate which companies one can and cannot enter a business agreement with. It can be legislated as part of a consent decree governing the breakup: A, B, and C may not enter into certain business relationships with each other _exclusively_, or something like that. If B wants early access to the APIs, A can licence them to B, and then _must_ licence them to anyone else willing to pay the same, non-prohibitive price. > [@](#): > > it is simply a matter of time before there are 1 or 2 bells running the show again. With 2 or 3 bells, there can be real competition. If it comes down to a merger of the last 2 or 3, the Justice department can disapprove of the merger/purchase and squash it. > [@](#): > > 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’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? There probably won’t be an immediate drop in price for any of those things. IE will always be free because its direct competitors are free (check out [mozilla](http://www.mozilla.org/), it’s already way better), and it has been free - try getting someone to pay for the new version when the old version is just as good, and was a free download anyway. What will probably happen is that the next generation of office products from Microsoft will be more aggressively marketed on their strengths, and not as a Microsoft solution. Competing office suites like Star Office and Applixware will gain market share, and the price for office suites will drop overall with several good solutions. I’ve used Star Office, and it’s as complete as Office97 for everything we do at our workplace, and we pay tens of thousands to licence Office; as IS Manager, I could very easily recommend that we switch to Star Office, which is fully compatible with MS file formats, as good as Office for our needs, and free to install and use internally (licencing fees come in for repackaging it as part of something else you’re selling). Once Star Office can claim as tight an integration with the OS as Office can, it’s the price that will decide for me. I don’t see how prices can increase afterwards, especially with free or low-priced competitors available that can justifiably claim that they’re as good. If Office is spun off from Windows, one of the first things that will happen is Office will be ported to Linux, the BSDs, and BeOS. Higher volume sales = lower prices. > [@](#): > > On a personal note, I believe this entire trial is simply a lesson for Bill for not playing ball with the congressmen and senators… That’s very cynical. Have any evidence to support it? > [@](#): > > Anybody who thinks this case was not politically motivated is simply delluding themselves. A lot of politicians have made hay over this, but that doesn’t mean the whole process is entirely politically driven. As I pointed out earlier, monopoly busting has gone on under Ford, Reagan and Bush, as well as democrats. It’s the Justice department pushing it, and I don’t think any president could simply shut down the investigation. These are, after all, criminal matters, and are most subject to the discretion of prosecutors and judges, not pols. > [@](#): > > 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. I think we need a legal opinion on the ability of the president to impede or end a criminal investigation. It didn’t help Clinton during Starr’s tenure, did it? Besides, Jackson’s findings of fact are now part of the record, and findings of fact are almost impossible to overturn or dismiss. Any company can now sue Microsoft for monopoly damages, and half their case is proven for them, that Microsoft is an abusive monopoly. Ending the DOJ investigation now, prior to the penalty phase, doesn’t change that. ## Besides, do you really take seriously a politician on the campaign trail making a promise he knows is popular to make? Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/microsoft-monopoly-yay-or-nay/18065.md?page=1)