Judge Jackson has basically approved the government’s proposal to bisect the company into “WinCo” and “AppCo”, and is waiting only for minor changes in the government’s proposal before ruling on it.
As for a dropping stock price, even Steve Allen has said publicly that Microsoft stock is radically overvalued. If funds drop in value, they’ve got no one to blame but an overheated stock market.
Thanks. I’ve been lurking for a little while and figured this would be a good place to jump in.
I agree with you that Microsoft, in driving the personal computer market, caused enough people to buy PCs so that a “critical mass” of potential Internet users could be reached. However, I think that is the limit to the amount of credit one can give Microsoft for the development of the Internet.
On a technological level, the Apple Macintosh in 1989 had the necessary capabilities to support Internet access with a web browser (those capabilities being a graphical user interface and a TCP/IP stack), while Windows did not get an integrated TCP/IP stack until 1995. Given that, I think the use and popularity of the Internet on home computers was inevitable, and would have happened on the Macintosh or some other platform if Microsoft hadn’t been around. It might have taken a little longer, but I’m quite certain it would have happened.
Getting back to whether Microsoft should be broken up, I think it’s irresponsible to excuse Microsoft’s illegal activity simply because they provided benefits to consumers (such as increasing the growth of the Internet). As illustrated in the quote by judge Jackson that I posted earlier, the deleterious effect of Microsoft’s illegal activity was that other products or technologies that would have provided benefits to consumers were prevented from even coming to market. As much as Microsoft would like us to, judging them without taking these effects into account is the wrong way to do it.
I am extrememly uncomfortable with the idea of breaking MS up, although I do agree that MS has acted in bad faith and undermined or bullied the opposition on several occasions.
Personally, I would just be happy if MS was forced to release the source code for their internal API hooks and their applications were hamstrung in one key way:
No MS application should be allowed to alter the internal OS code, especially without telling the customer!!!
Other companies cannot do this, but MS can. For instance, when we loaded FrontPage on a couple of machines at work, it killed two other (Air Force written) programs because it “upgraded” the underlying ftp code without warning. Even after an uninstall of FrontPage the programs no longer worked until Windows itself was reinstalled. A third party application has to either work with the existing OS or add new features “on top” the OS without altering the source code.
Whether or not MS acted “illegally” simply means their actions can be construed as in violation of some particular piece of legislation. That certainly is not the necessary equivalent of concluding that their behavior/actions are/were “bad.”
I would appreciate it if someone would explain to me how I, or any particular portions of the public/industry/economy have been “harmed” by the actions MS has been found guilty of. Tho I use computers regularly at work and home, I am far, far from expert. My experience is entirely with PC windows systems/apps. I do not find myself harmed in any way by a lack of options or inadequate performance.
A couple of questions.
-Isn’t the proposed break-up unique in that MS obtained its monopoly status primarily through internal growth, rather than through acquisition of competitors?
-Isn’t MS getting outdone or facing serious competion in several areas of the industry?
I am not for Microsoft splitting up. But If the judge want to split Microsoft, he has to go all the way. Splitting into two or three is woefully inadequate; it would just create two or three monopolies. To adequately punish Microsoft, from his perspective, he should split according to these lines:
Windows
Internet browser and enhancements
Server programs
Gaming–Games? Yes. Don’t forget, Microsoft has probably one of the strongest games department.
Office/financial software
Education software
In each of these areas Microsoft is very strong, and many of these elements if split can monopolize aspects of the software industry for the foreseeable future. But without the advantage of a massive stock resource, each of these will be forced into competition. These are the 6 parts I was talking about.
Certainly true. But I think the facts show that their actions were both illegal and “bad.”
OK, I’ll take a shot at this. In large part Microsoft’s actions have been harmful to consumers in that they artificially limited consumer choice and product innovation in a significant number of areas by using their monopoly status. Some examples from the trial:
[ul]
[li]Intel Native Signal Processing software: In 1995, Intel was developing software that would allow the owners of Intel processors to get the maximum multimedia performance out of their processors. Microsoft didn’t like this software because it exposed application programming interfaces (APIs) that could be used to write software that would run on operating systems other than Windows just as easily as on Windows. As a result Microsoft pressured Intel into abandoning the software, with the promise that it would integrate the features into the Windows API. As of the end of 1998, though, Microsoft still hadn’t implemented key capabilities of Intel’s software.[/li]
Not only did Microsoft quash the NSP software, but it wanted to make sure that Intel wouldn’t develop software with operating system-independent APIs in the future. It did this by threatening to remove support for Intel processors in upcoming versions of Windows. Due to Microsoft’s monopoly in operating systems run on Intel chips, this lack of support would have had a devastating impact on Intel’s sales, so Intel backed down.
Harm to consumers: Intel processor users were (and may still be) unable to take full advantage of the multimedia performance of their CPUs.
[li]IBM PC Company: When IBM acquired Lotus in 1995 and decided to offer Lotus’ SmartSuite (an Office competitor, and a platform that offered operating system-independent APIs) with the operating systems it sold, Microsoft retaliated. It first dragged its feet on licensing negotiations for Windows 95, then finally terminated them. Microsoft tried to get IBM to renounce its decision to offer SmartSuite, but IBM refused, and as a result, Microsoft refused to license Windows 95 to IBM for over a month after it had licensed it to its competitors. As a result, IBM missed out on the pent up demand for new computers with Windows 95, as well as the back-to-school market for that fall.[/li]
Harm to consumers: users did not have the option to use SmartSuite on Windows 95 when it was released.
Harm to industry: IBM lost significant revenue by not being able to sell Windows 95 on its systems until well after its competitors.
[li]Netscape Navigator: Since Navigator also exposed operating system-independent APIs, Microsoft was intent on stemming its use and increasing the use of Internet Explorer. It did this by distributing Internet Explorer for free and tying it to Windows through both contractual and technological means. Using its monopoly power, it required OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers; companies like Gateway, Dell, Compaq, etc.) to include Internet Explorer with Windows. Since OEMs handle end user support, they were relucant to include both browsers because this would increase support issues and drive down profit margins. As a result, they generally only included Explorer. Microsoft also effectively cut off most of the other efficient ways for Netscape’s distribution of its browser. (Note that this is just a small sampling of the issues related to Netscape Navigator.)[/li]
Harm to consumers: in the short term, users have an artifically restricted choice in web browers. Also, users who have no need for a web browser are forced have one anyway, and to deal with the resulting increased disk usage, number of bugs, and risk of incompatibilities. In the long term, Microsoft gains a lever with which to attempt to monopolize that basic protocols of the Internet.
Harm to the industry: hurt Netscape’s business to the point where it had to sell itself to AOL to survive.
[li]Windows Boot Sequence: Microsoft was afraid that OEMs would hide Internet Explorer and promote Netscape Navigator through the use of programs run at the initial bootup (this would not uninstall Internet Explorer, so would not violate the requirement from the previous bullet). As a result, Microsoft also required that OEMs not change the initial bootup screen or icons present on the desktop. This had the additional effect of preventing OEMs from including programs run at bootup to would help novices set up and use their computer, or from including other programs that would differentiate their brand from others.[/li]
Harm to consumers: it was more difficult than necessary to set up and learn to use their computer.
Harm to industry: OEMs costs increased due to increased numbers of support calls, increased number of computers returned to stores, and decreased product registrations.
In a letter to Microsoft on this topic, Hewlett Packard stated “From the consumer perspective, we are hurting our industry and our customers.”
[li]Java: Microsoft was threatened by the operating system-independent nature of Java, and attempted to subvert it by adding proprietary extensions and failing to support parts of it, contrary to its license agreement with Sun.[/li]
Harm to industry: it was more difficult and expensive for programmers to write Java applications that ran across different platforms.
Harm to consumers: as a result, there was less choice in Java applications.
[/ul]
And I’ll also include a couple examples off the top of my head that weren’t mentioned in the trial:
[ul]
[li]DR DOS: Around the time of the beta releases of Microsoft Windows 3.1 there was a competitor to MS DOS called DR DOS. DR DOS was successful and generally considered to be superior to MS DOS by several trade magazines. With the beta releases of Windows 3.1 however, Microsoft included code that gave spurious error messages and terminated the program when it was run on top of DR DOS instead of MS DOS. It was quite clear that this was intentional as the code in question was highly obfuscated. See this link for all the gory details. With this dirty trick, Microsoft was able to sow uncertainty about DR DOS’s compatibility with Windows, which basically killed the product and protected Microsoft’s operating system monopoly.[/li]
Harm to consumers: lack of apparent choice in DOS-compatible operating systems.
Harm to industry: substantially decreased sales for Novell, the owner of DR DOS. Note that Caldera, the current owner of DR DOS, recouped some of this cost in a recent out of court settlement for an estimated $150-$400 million.
[li]Hidden APIs: Microsoft routinely incorporates APIs in their operating system products that are hidden from third party developers. These APIs often provide functionality or efficiency that does not exist in the exposed APIs. As a result, Microsoft can use their operating system monopoly to unfairly make their applications run faster or do things non-Microsoft applications cannot do.[/li]
Harm to industry: some non-Microsoft applications are unable to properly compete on the merits against Microsoft applications because they don’t have access to these APIs.
Harm to consumers: eventually, Microsoft dominates these applications, leaving consumers with fewer choices.
[/ul]
I don’t know, but this is irrelevant to the trial. At issue is whether Microsoft used anticompetitive practices to maintain its existing monopoly position in operating systems and acquire monopolies in other areas.
In some markets, yes. But again, this is irrelevant to the trial. The relevant market for the trial is operating systems for x86 (i.e. Intel) compatible personal computers. I think this is a rational definition of the market, since the products in the other areas are not substitutable for the products in this market.
Mr. Feely
If Microsoft is to be broken up I have a simple way to do it. Have Microsoft sell Windows to Larry Ellison’s company Oracle and then sell the browser to AOL. Microsoft gets to keep the applications division. Since none of these companies trusts each other you won’t have to worry about lack of competition.
How about this: The corporation segments go on the public block, like the government does with all siezed property. Those who have the money get the honey, as the old saying goes. Gates can only own one of the three. I figure, this might increase globalization as the Colombian drug czars and the Arabian oil sheiks vie for a piece of the most lucrative market since the CIA started selling crack. This would also give AT&T, the new government-approved monopoly, a chance to really clean up. Hey, if the special interest lobbies can kill Microsoft, perhaps the war on drugs can take a new turn as Colombian drug czars (the ones who would buy up segments of Microsoft) are prosecuted for anti-competetive practices. I wonder if Glaxo-Wellcome wants the crack and meth segments?
For the humor-challenged: That was a parody of all those who want to rip up Microsoft like vultures rend a corrupt corpse. It also asks as question: Why are we prosecuting imagined offenses while real criminals can operate at the price of a few bribes? I know why, but I still don’t like it. I’m just waiting to hear how Reno uses her blood money.
I’ll say this: if we wind up with 600 incompatible, non-portable commercial platforms as a result of this trial, it will be a pox on the feds.
Mr. Feely - thanks alot for the responses. I understand most of your points, but must state that I personally do not consider myself to have been “harmed” in any way by anything you list.
Things get all fuzzy for me when I try to take things to the macro level, discussing implications on the economy as a whole or the computer industry with behemoth MS vs several more equal competitors. And I guess addressing that level is one role government is supposed to take. And potential competitors have certainly been prevented from fulfilling their aspirations by MS actions. So I will not argue that some action against MS wasn’t warranted.
But when I view things through my individual situation, and prioritize what I want my governmnet to do for ME, going after MS is pretty damn low on the list. It astounds me how cheaply I was able to put an incredibly powerful computer in my office at home, how easy it is to use, and how compatible it is with so many sources of info.
It strikes me that the majority if not all of your examples address 2 points:
Regarding 1., I’m not a high end user, so that doesn’t really bother me. In examining “harm” to me, I am adopting a purely egotistic view.
Regarding 2., I guess I’m blissfully ignorant about most things computer, but I sure haven’t felt constrained by the package that was “forced” on me. I’m certainly aware of Netscape, but MS Explorer suits my needs fine, and it didn’t exactly tick me off to have it already loaded. Sure, macs are easier to set up, but if I was able to get my pc up and running, it can’t be that hard. And I (and my family) would have to work quite hard before we exhausted the capability of the relatively modest box we have at home. And I regularly encounter more folk who are significantly less computer adept than I. I think folk who are really into computers, whether employed by the industry or not, don’t realie the tremendous number of people who think along the lines of capacitor.
From another perspective, what inconveniences would the “average” computer user, not in the industry, experience from a breakup and increased competition? Is the trade off that increased competition would benefit high end users, while less sophisticated users might benefit from compatibility and other results of monopolistic posture?
As an analogy, I don’t feel I am significantly better off since the break up of ATT (other than the performance of my stock in Baby Bells!) I don’t use the phone enough that I want to have to choose between local and long distance providers, etc. And yeah, I really wish my phone bills would get a little longer and more complicated. Let’s add some more services I don’t use that will bump up my monthly line charge. And toss in another couple of minimum monthly charge while your at it.
Maybe I should change my name to Luddite? 
I can certainly understand how you and other non-techie users feel that you haven’t been harmed, Dinsdale. In general, Microsoft’s anticompetitive actions have had only indirect effects on users, and these effects have not been readily attributable to Microsoft’s abuse of their monopoly.
For example, in the trial Microsoft was shown to have abused their monopoly in 1997-1998 by trying to prevent Apple from releasing QuickTime on the Windows platform. They did this by threatening incompatibility with Microsoft’s own media player among other things. Despite Microsoft’s threats, Apple released it anyway. Fast forward to yesterday, when one of my officemates was trying to include QuickTime movies in her PowerPoint presentation. Even though it “should” have worked, she was getting cryptic error messages. After wasting at least an hour trying to get it to work, she finally gave up and converted it to a format that Microsoft’s media player could handle. (Note that she is a graduate student in computer science, so it’s not that she doesn’t know what she’s doing.) An ordinary person would have chalked this up to poor programming. I ordinarily would have had my suspicions about Microsoft’s ulterior motives, but wouldn’t have been able to prove anything. However, having read the findings of fact from the trial, I think it’s quite likely that this incompatibility was intentional.
To address the two points you made about my examples, and how they don’t really affect users like you, lets take a minor detour and look at the “technology adoption life cycle.” See figure 2.3 about halfway down this page for reference. Briefly, the technology adoption life cycle represents the characteristics and number of people who adopt a technology over time. At first, you generally see only a small number of technology enthusiasts picking up the technology, then a larger number of early adopters, an even larger number of pragmatic adopters, about the same number of conservative adopters, and finally a small number of skeptics. Between the early adopters and the pragmatists, you have a period of time (a chasm) where most of your early adopters are already using the technology, but it hasn’t become popular yet with your pragmatists.
So what does this have to do with the Microsoft antitrust trial, you are probably asking yourself. 
Well, Microsoft is not stupid, and is very good at identifying technologies on the leftmost part of the graph that have the potential to threaten their monopoly. In many cases, they were able to use their monopoly power to halt these technologies before they crossed the “chasm” and became popular. These actions primarily affected high end users (who are normally on the left side of the graph), as you mentioned. However, a secondary effect of these actions was that the technologies were not allowed to mature to the point where they were useful or even known to people in the middle of the graph. As a result, they never even reached the point where people such as yourself could see them as viable choices.
This practice, in conjunction with the fact that Microsoft always produces it’s own version of whatever technology it is trying to stop, allows Microsoft to take control of the technology without taking away any capability that users have come to expect. What users miss out on, though, is the future innovation that doesn’t occur because Microsoft no longer has competition in the market for that technology.
As far as inconveniences due to the breakup of Microsoft, I don’t expect that the general public will experience anything other than minor inconvenience. No one who has a computer now will have their computer suddenly stop working, once Microsoft is split. Once it is split though, there will be significant market pressure for OEMs to preserve the compatability that users have come to depend on. Although less sophisticated users will probably not directly benefit from the breakup (with the possible exception of decreased price), other individuals and companies acting on their behalf (such as OEMs) will pass the benefit on to them through increased innovation.
I apologize that I can’t relate to your AT&T analogy, as I was only 8 years old at the time the breakup happened. However, I will say that my long distance rates have dropped significantly in just the five years that I’ve been paying for my own phone line.
Mr. Feely
Thanks, Mr. F. (tho not for making me feel like a fossil!:-D)
When I wrote the original post, I wanted to know the thoughts of others in this matter. I therefore posed a question without comment. It’s time that I checked in.
Mr. Feely seems to have a remarkable handle on the issues as well as an unusual skill with words. I’m pleased to see an informed and articulate post in favor of the split.
I, too, am in favor of splitting MicroSoft. I don’t care that they are a behemoth. I am glad that they are successful. Bill Gates having a net worth of $85 billion is no more than an interesting amusement. The problem isn’t THAT they succeeded, but HOW they succeeded.
One should get into the mind of Bill Gates for just a moment and remember the “early days”. DOS, CP/M, MacIntosh, Apple II, and one or two other systems were all competing for their nitch in the marketplace. In a convention (seminar) setting, Bill Gates got up on stage and announced to his competition that there was room for exact ONE PC operating system in the world, and it would be his.
So having stated his intent to dominate the market, Bill Gates proceeded to do that.
Forgive me for rehashing a bit of Mr. Feely’s comments, but he’s covered the ground so well. Any supporting comment has to touch some of his subject matter. Here are the three “crimes” that are the easiest to describe in a few words.
DR DOS was considered superior to MS DOS at a time when PCs were primarily DOS based and progressing to a GUI interface (Windows) running on top of DOS. Had MicroSoft not sabotaged Window’s ability to run under DR DOS, a competitive marketplace could well have established DR DOS as the dominant operating system today. The harm? DR DOS is not an option – there is no choice and you pay MicroSoft’s price.
MicroSoft admits to missing the explosive growth of the Internet. Netscape entered the browser arena with a reasonably stable and reliable product that quickly dominated the browser market. When MicroSoft realized their mistake, they quickly developed a browser and then gave it away to acquire the market in an tangetial arena where they had shown no interest. MicroSoft wanted into this market so they used the revenue produced by the rest of the company to develop and give away software with the sole intent of commandeering the market! (See the rest of Mr. Feely’s comments.) The harm? Consumers have no real choice in browser software and a competitor of sufficient size to offer competing products is defunct.
Sun had an absolutely brilliant idea when it came up with JAVA. The very thought of a universal language that is 100% portable between systems, regardless of hardware OR software technology, is enough to rock the foundation of the industry. MicroSoft knew that. So they “stole” JAVA technology by licensing the product and illegally adding their extensions that made Window’s java code incompatible with other JAVA code. MicroSoft documents, released as part of Sun’s lawsuit, use the phrase, “we must wrest control”, to describe how they intend to collaborate with JAVA. The harm? Java code (the universal language) written on a Windows based PC is not necessarily compatible with JAVA code written on other platforms. Sure, the JDK is available for download to my PC, but Microsoft has gone to great trouble to make sure the their java isn’t compatible.
Those that argue against MicroSoft being split up are arguing for MicroSoft as the only software vendor. I hope those same people don’t start arguing for Hyundai as the only car vendor because they’re cheap.
SouthernStyile
Big business vs. big government. Hard to pick out a good guy here.
I tend to side with the DOJ on this one, given Microsoft’s draconian busniess tactics, as well as what is obvious to most anyone…that indeed Microsoft has a monopoly. But frankly, unlike the US Steel, and AT&T monopolies, thus far Microsoft’s monopoly has been largely beneficial to the populace…driving prices down, fostering innovation. So it is hard to say.
I love the agruments posed by MS lovers.
Usually they start out by saying that “others computer companies do the same things.”: Yeah they do, those are illegal as well, and should be controlled by the government.
And the precident should be set for the future that we won’t let monoplies harm us in the future, like the harm microsoft has caused us. For the people who can’t see the harm microsoft has done, remeber neither could the average american before the Japanese auto explosion. The increased competetion made all cars better., just cuase you can’t imagine the differences doesn’t make them non existant, and the basic rule of capitalism America runs by is compettion is good.
Next of course comes the “well I wouldn’t be on conputers/internet without MS”.: Obviously not having microsoft changes the world, but netscape and Mac OS exist without MS’s blessing and If you can’t get those to work, you have big problems.
There there is always “It’ll harm innovation”: What innovation is microsoft responsible for, as others have pointed out the stole or bought everything. They just repackage and market, that’s not innovation.
“It’ll harm consumers”: what? How does Microsoft help consumers? If MS had never existed there would be a perfectly strong and thriving computer comerce in the world. Every body agrees that MS is either A:a shrewd and competitive company, B: a Monopolistic law breaking company, and neither helps consumers, stupid badly run companies help consumers(until they go out of business) for example if I am a shrewd enough businessman(legal or illlegal) to convince you to pay $60,000 for a 78 pinto how does that help you? however if I sell you a brand new mercedes for 2000 bucks then I have helped you, cause it should break down less often than the piece of crap you would usually get to 2000. A lot of people seem to confuse harming consumers, with harming MS shareholders. There is the overall economy question but you are worshiping way too hard at Bill-zebub’s altar if you truly think no other company could have done the same thing.
To hijack my own thread for a moment…
I’m not old enough to remember much about the AT&T breakup. I certainly didn’t care at the time.
But think about this for a moment: PCs have gone from being “micro computers” to “personal computers” to “information disseminators”. Had AT&T not been broken up, MicroSoft could be merely a bit player in this entire argument as the AT&T monopoly would have been in a position to control how, when, and for how much, information is passed.
MicroSoft’s illegal activities have reduced to rubble a number of quality products and companies. Just as I can now chooses my long distance carrier and negotiate the pricing, 30 years from now I might like to have choices in the PC and information world, too.
end-hijack.
SouthernStyle
Not sure if there’s anything I can really add, Mr.s Feely has covered it well, but for a few minor points:
Monopolies are not illegal in and of themselves. If the monopoly exists due to economies of scale (one large company being more efficient than many smaller ones) or if high start-up costs and/or a small market make entry costs prohibitive, then it is legal. We have seen this with power, water and cable companies. In many areas these type of monopolies are even protected by local legislation as the area government would not want multiple companies laying pipe, or stringing wire or cable redunantly. Patent protection, especially for pharmaceuticals, are also legal monopolies. The philosophy behind drug monopolies is that while actual production costs are low, the research can be very expensive and fewer companies would conduct expensive research if competition could immediately start producing identical products as it is hard to be competetive if you’re the one with the highest cost.
In Microsoft’s case, I don’t recall any complaints by the government on Microsoft’s virtual monopoly on Operating Systems. I don’t believe it has ever been asserted that their OS monopoly was illegaly gained or maintained. Their monopoly in OS’s seems to be mostly a good thing: a single (or at least predominant) standard and compatability are very desirable. It was only the use of this monopoly power to squelch competition in related software that was deemed unfair. It is definitely disputed that MS would not have gained a monopoly in browsers or with their Office Suite, if they had not made these software programs a requirement for use of their OS.
And I think this post is long enough.
pinqy
I have but one question.
What was there before MICROSOFT?
Of course they shouldn’t.
They’ve done nothing wrong, the FoF is fundamentally flawed (it defines a market that MS don’t compete in, but then claims that they have a monopoly in that market) and the break up as it now is won’t solve a single “problem” that the FoF and the judgement claimed that there is.
To answer “what was there before MS”: There were a million and one different *nix clones, all incompatible, all nigh impossible to use.
coughnatural monopolycough
That’s what I thought. I recall computers that couldn’t talk to each other, program disks that had to be formatted with like 4 different addresses to work on most systems, and programs that might not work all that well, being designed for IBM but also addressed to work on Tandy.
I recall buying programs for different functions and having to use their disks, plus save my work to data disks because there were no hard drives. I had a Tandy laptop, one of the first of the portables but most of it’s screen display was saved on a chip and could not be changed. I used two sets of disks to load in programs – with data disks for each and Tandy would not work on the Commodor64 I had, with twin disk drives that we never managed to get to operate in sync. The TANDY also used small disks, which had begun to come out.
THEN CAME MICROSOFT and the heavens parted in computer land and a great light descended to sweep away the darkness and the mystery of the operating systems and joy was in the world.
Suddenly, you could buy a single program that worked on all computers, switch from function to function, get built in help, and run other programs, like games, as well! When the Internet opened up, Microsoft was there and ready. Sure the initial program gave one heartburn trying to work it all out, but it kept being upgraded and was initially designed for business.
Before MS, there was IBM and everything had to be IBM compatible but I don’t recall anyone wanting IBM broken up.
Maw Bell was a monolithic company prior to the big breakup, but our phone bills were cheaper, our equipment better, our service more trouble free and the Phone Company kept producing new inventions to make things easier and easier for us. After the breakup, everything went to hell. Service and technology suffered. Now I have to put up with a dozen long distance services illegally switching me to their rolls, calling me up begging me to sign on, lying to be about their benefits and charging me up the butt if I use them. Joe Slime turns out every type of cheap phone possible that looks good and can be bought for a few dollars but breaks down within weeks and functions poorly. The bastion of shelter on a cold, rainy night – the Phone Booth – is gone because Joe Cheap persuaded businesses to use his generic pay phones, for a piece of the action, got the booths pulled out, put in open phones that offer no protection and cost twice as much to use and take forever to service when they break down.
So, what do you think is going to happen if Microsoft is split up?
I don’t know, but I think if I were Bill Gates, I’d order all of my factories to stop production now and shut everything down. Can you imagine the chaos that would cause in the business world? The ramifications would be felt internationally and, then they might decide not to split up MS after all.
By the way, I just ‘love’ all of the anti-Gates propaganda being spewed about, don’t you? It kind of reminds me of the early tactics Unions used to use to BS the ‘masses’.