Slashdot Mirror
ABCNews:Potential Recommended MS Break-Up
ThaJungle was the first to write us with the news that the U.S. Government may recommend a drastic remedy against Microsoft in its anti-trust suit. This would be the recommedation from the DOJ and the 19 states involved in the suit, not necessarily what Judge Jackson would recommend.
I say ... why not do both; make multiple companies for each product line. If we take the catagories from the article, we could have two Windows companies, two applications companies, and two internet companies. That way, not only will tying be reduced, but also each company would have to fight against another one, and we could avoid subversive, under-the-table dealings between the companies.
This is clearly not enough. :)
I recommend, shutting the company down, giving away the source code, dispensing the bank accounts to the Free Software Foundation, and public execution of the executive officers after an appropriate period of stoning.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Separate colluding companies is *not* worse, but substantially better than just one.
The current cross-behavior makes sense only because the bottom line profits go into the same pocket. Thus it makes sense for windows to take a $30 hit for office to gain $50, and vice versa.
With office and Windows owned separately, it would be necessary for office to *pay* windows at least the $30 to get them to take the hit. There's illegal behavior, and then there's illegal behavior that's easy to spot. This is the latter. It's reall hard to hide payments of 100's of millions between separate companies in these circumstances.
BUt the bottom line is that separate companies are at worst a cartel (they wouldn't be here, due to the different products), and the absolute worst case with a cartel is the monopoly result. However, cartels are unstable, and actual results are better than monopoly.
hawk
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
.
One more time. Everyone take a deep breath. Now repeat after me:
"Open sourcing windows and office is not an option."
OK, now say it again three times slowly.
The court lacks the power to do this. It would be a taking of private property, banned by the Bill of Rights. The *only* way for the court to release the code without microsoft's agreement is for someone to pay the fair market value. I'm reasonably certain that that court does not have tens of billions of dollars in discretionaryfunds, so it would have to go to congress. And Congress is unlikely to allocate that many billion dollars to pay to a monopolist . .
hawk, esq.
Something similar goes for the other often-discussed remedy, open sourcing Windows (without making it freely redistributable). That would simply entrench Microsoft software further.
Good remedies I can think of would be:
Microsoft has been squashing the competition not through better technologies but through misleading marketing and announcements, forcing unfavorable terms on others, and buying out competitors, a direct result of their market position. That conduct has denied consumers better technology and choice, and that conduct needs to be addressed directly.
Of course they can. The whole point of a fine is to make it hurt. They just have to set it high enough so that it does so, even if the overall magnitude of the fine is shocking and unprecendented. Think in terms of percentage of equity, rather than total dollars.
(Heh, then when Microsoft cries that its total equity is overstated, put people in jail for fraudulent accounting.)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
IANAL.
My understanding is that the State that a corporation is charterd in does have the authority to invoke the "death penalty" by revoking a corporation's charter. The Feds do not have this authority, nor should they.
However, (fortunately or unfortuantely, depending on your perspective), this ability of the States to demand good corporate behavior from their corporate "citizens" has been pretty much a dead letter. Politicians need (advertising) dollars to get elected, and corporations have those dollars. And if enough politicians did have the collective cohones to stand up to that, corporations can always punish the local constituents by moving jobs over a state line, which tends to make politicians unpopular with the voters, and thus ex-politicians.
Aggh. Wrong. Why do people post if they have no clue. Presumably, because they never did live under the old regime.
Once upon a time, there was a monopoly phone company, known affectionately as Ma Bell. Ma Bell sold you local telephone service, long distance service, and every freaking phone in your house. Wait; take that last part back: since Ma Bell charged you for extra phones and phonelines, most people only had one phone. Again, people actually didn't complain that much, since Ma Bell was seen as a benevolent dictator, subject to regulation, and the phone system was surely a natural monopoly, right?
Wrong. I don't know about you, but today I've got local service from one company, long distance from a second, three good, cheap phones from companies that couldn't make phones for the US market before the break-up. I can dial around the long distance provider at will. I can get a cell phone from one of several competing companies. My real cost per minute for service has gone down a lot. I could have gotten high speed internet access service (ADSL or ISDN)from the local phone company or from one of four local ISPs. Ironically, perhaps, I chose to get a cable modem from ATT itself because it was cheaper and better. In a week or three, I'll be doing my own in-home wireless networking set-up using technology from Lucent, which contains parts of the old ATT that used to make the solid but boring monopoly-priced phones you had to use.
Oh yeah: I inherited stock that used to be ATT shares, but ended up being stock in all the baby bells, Lucent, and now (after some financial dealings) Vodaphone Airtouch, a huge British wireless company. Needless to say, the babies and split-offs have done phenomenally better than the old ATT shares had done historically.
I could go on and on, but the point is that the break-up of ATT is now a textbook case on why it might still be a good idea to break up companies that have monopoly power, even when they have good PR. Whether or not breaking up Microsoft is the best idea or not does not mean that the break-up of ATT was anything but a huge win for everybody concerned.
Babar
We all know that Microsoft maintains it's position not by superior products but by simple marketing. We also know that many other companies hold on to their (non-monopoly) positions the same way. In fact, decisions made on the basis of marketing rather than quality can be blamed for a lot of our problems, including Congress.
So I propose the following remedy: Kill the idiots. We all know several idiots. Kill them. These idiots may include your boss (who decided to use MS PPTP for the corporate VPN), your coworker (who laughs when you can't configure a winmodem, and then goes back to installing Service Pack 6), your ISP (who asks if you run a Mac or a PC "You know...Windows"). Kill them all.
Just think what a wonderful world it would be where you wouldn't have people claiming that "NT is standards compliant" or "Best viewed with [insert browser name here]".
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I see a lot of comments about "how will a breakup keep the baby bills from conspiring together?" It won't--because it won't need to. Regular old market forces will do the work for us.
For instance, let's say they break into OS, Apps, Publishing, Hardware. First move by Apps is to port Office to Linux. Countermove by OS is to remove optimizations for Office, making WordPerfect (and all the others) run equally well. OS also probably publishes API spec to lure developers back (who are leaving in droves right now). Publishing and Hardware, now free to jump on the Linux bandwagon, do so. Etc etc etc.
Sure, they could all work together--but simple game theory predicts they won't. Together they could make a killing (just like they are now), but as separate companies the lure to "defect" (break the cartel) would just be too strong.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Remember what happened to fishermen who tried to get rid of seafishes by cutting them in pieces? They ended up with many more seafishes.
But Judge Jackson said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them software. /dev/null, chapter 14.)
And they say unto him, We have here but one Microsoft.
He said, Bring it hither to me.
And he commanded the DOJ to sit down, and took the Microsoft, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the companies to his disciples, and the disciples to the DOJ.
And they did all have software, and were filled: and they took up of the stocks that remained twelve billion dollars full.
(Gospel according to
The real question to me is: what do you do with a rogue corporation? Microsoft's monopoly doesn't scare me half as much as their total disrespect for the law. The government can fine you and I, and throw our collective butts in jail, for committing crimes. They can't fine Microsoft enough to make them feel the pain, and they can't really incarcerate them.
I don't believe in the death penalty for people, but I do believe in it for corporations--less bloodshed. The courts need the rights to do real damage to a company, possibly pulling their papers of incorporation or simply denying them access to stock markets such as the NASDAQ. Remember, these are govenrment-granted priveleges, not inherent rights (corporations have no inherent rights; no matter what the Supreme Court says, they are not people).
I don't suggest that the courts try to do either to Microsoft...yet. However, I do believe that the courts need this sort of power, to be used only in the most extreme of circumstances, in order to give their rulings teeth.
I am not a fan of giving a lot of power to a government. However, I do believe that the government must have the power to trump a corporation. Otherwise, the Bill of Rights may one day become a EULA.
--The basis of all love is respect
Do you remember how Microsoft beat Netscape? They decided to develop Internet Explorer and give it away for free, when Netscape was selling their browser. If Microsoft had been two different companies then, the Internet one may not have been able to withstand giving away their product for free, because it wouldn't have the profit from the operating system. While the three companies could certainly still cooperate, they couldn't use their power in one aspect of the software business to take over another part. A broken off Internet department of Microsoft couldn't legally make itself totally unprofitable to be OS Microsoft's puppy dog, since it is a publically held company.
This "solution" has been bandied about so often that it's obvious that it's the one Gates wants and has been promoting. Anyone remember a monopoly called AT&T and what happened to it? As "punishment" it was broken up into a number of smaller companies - AT&T long distance, Bell Labs (which became Lucent) and the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs). Holders of AT&T stock got shares in these newly created companies.
The combined value of the individual companies now far exceeds the value of the original entity. From the perspective of the majority shareholder, this can only be a "good thing".
Also, anyone been following how, like the T-1000 Terminator, the globs of the original phone system (Ameritech, Southwestern Bell, Pac Bell) are reforming back into the national monopoly? And they're doing it in the name of "competition".
Choose some other remedy that has not been so extensively promoted in the national media...the media wholly owned and operated by wealthy individuals that doubtlessly own large amouts of Microsoft stock. Open Windows' source code...if only to hear the rollicking laughter from the coders who download it.
But, whatever you do, don't throw Briar Bill in that briar patch."How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Buy a Microsoft-blessed P/PC running Windows CE, Install ActiveSync under Windows 2000, and then see how "stable" Windows 2000 is. :(
Breaking up Microsoft is a good step. Frankly, it's one of the only ones that could be taken. However, It's not going to be enough. Instead of one big company holding 80% of the OS market and 80% of the desktop suite market, you'll have 2 smaller companies, one holding the OS market and one holding the app market. It's not much progress.
At the same time Microsoft is broken up, the court should open the source code. Perhaps a new open source license would have to be devised for this, but it wouldn't be that difficult to come up with. By doing this, the court will cause competition to return to the market.
Let's all get over our irrational thoughs of "Windows is evil!" It's not evil. It just performs poorly. Windows is not a bad OS, what's bad is that it's monopolized by one company. By opening the source, other people can work on making it better, less bloated, and more cooperative with other apps. And the code line will fork and be sold by different companies. It would also provide a huge jump to windows emulators.
And what about the poor broken up Microsoft, which is now left with a pile of code that they have to share with everyone? Well, they keep claiming that they're innovators, that they drive technology. If that's the case, I'm sure they'll come up with something new pretty quickly. If not, and they were just lying to everyone, they'll dissapear. And of course, they could still provide a paid support structure for Windows and Office for those people that really like that security.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Let the customers choose to install the Os themselves! Let them handle Microsoft. The OEMs need not install any OS, if they so choose. This should drive away a lot of Microsoft's market on the desktop. And it will be easier than having to police M$.
Just my 2c.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
I'm somewhat disturbed by the sighting of sources here. ABC news reports that The Washington Post and USA Today published 2 different accounts of possible action against MS. I would at least like to see them note that they have a source that can confirm this, or have some sort of source in the DOJ or something. For all I know the Post and USA Today are reporting that ABC is reporting that they reported . . .
It sort of reminds me of that game where you whisper a message to the person next to you and they to the person next and without fail the message gets screwed up. I wouldn't be shocked if this all started with some attorney asking another attorney "Hey, do you know where I can get some really cool clip art?"
Breaking up Microsoft would result in seperate companies selling seperate parts of the MS product line.
So what?
People who have been using Word will still buy Word, people who have been using IE will still use IE. Further, it is still to each Baby Bill's advantage to simply license software to one another; nothing has changed
In other words, breaking up the company does not introduce competition into the market. It just makes for several sub-monopolies.
It was also announced that Microsoft will have to return the souls of all of the companies they have acquired during the years. No word yet as to whether or not they will return all of the spines collected from their employees...
http://slashdot.org/articles/00 /03/29/2245207.shtml
As I was saying:
solution (Score:1)
by roman_mir on Wednesday March 29, @11:46PM EST (#81)
(User Info)
Disallow MS to have closed standards.
Open ALL Standards (not the code, just the standards)
Enforce MS to KEEP their standards for at least 5 years in a row.
Disallow MS to brake OTHER standards (Java, W3C etc.)
Disallow MS to acquire other companies for 4 years, disallow MS buying technologies for 3 years.
Disallow MS to interfere with OEMs by either fining them or rewarding. more later...
You can't handle the truth.
Breaking the company up in this fashion would not serve the American people, but actually harm it. Splitting the company along product lines would not guarantee fair competition in the OS market, it would furthur strengthen it's stranglehold on corporate america.
While the applications sub-company would no longer be bound to creating only windows apps,it is not a guarantee that they would build the flagship for any OS outside of windows. By splitting the company up on these lines, This is a punitive measure, not a corrective one.
If the US Goverenment wants to correct the problem (Which IMNSHO is that I am forced to buy Windows to get IE, use Word and Excel and a bunch of other corporate-america-accepted-psuedo-standard software), they should take and make three or four Microsoft clones. Make them Identitcal, give them all the source code to all of the products. Make them COMPETE. Trust me, if there were 3 or 4 exact same companies, they would then have to compete to deliver and sell the product to anyone. Want Windows, no browser? MS#1 might not sell that, but MS#2 would climb up and sell that to ya... The OS could'nt be hijacked and controlled by One company, as each is vying for a quarter share of the marketplace they held as a unit....
They must be made to compete If the states fail to do that, the rest does not matter.
Thanks.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again : Theres nothing like being redundant.
After reading the ABC/Reuters report, it got me to thinking. [takes puff off of virtual ce-gar]
Ya see, not counting the myth and inerta around Microsoft, what do we know about the rest of the industry?
Operating systems are commodities.
Services dominate, not shelfware.
90% of all software is custom.
UNIX = lingua franca; All major and most minor operating systems -- including embeded ones -- are based on some variant of Unix or are moving to it.
Application vendors like Corel, and IBM's Lotus division aren't raking in money hand over fist.
Most software companies have one-product or have a very limited focus.
Most software companies have competitors, in the real sense of the word.
Now, back to Microsoft...let's take it as a given that they will be split up. How much is are the parts of Microsoft actually worth?
OS: Windows OS -- including W2K -- has a necessary limited lifespan as a profit center.
Service: The poor service and arrogance -- second only to IBM of the 70s & 80s -- will have to improve, or the services will have to be charged for in inventive ways.
Custom development: The language division becomes more important, as it will switch to reselling the unbundled GUI, API, and specialized modules.
UNIX: If you can't beat them, join them. Watch those unbundled modules from the Windows client and server move to other operating systems.
Applications: The application division will spin off many of the different parts to boost share value. I doubt that Office will be broken up, but FoxPro and other programs built in-house or bought along the way might pop up again as mini-Bills.
Limited focus: With little to bind the "baby Bills" together, and stockholders demanding increased returns, MS's parts will disintegrate into the general computer software market to the point where it won't make any difference that it is or isn't a Microsoft product.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
And I thought MS will be divided into 'sales', 'marketing' and 'legal' ...