Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Advocates Breaking-Up a Guilty MS
Zulu_McDuffy wrote to us with an opinion piece by a Silicon Valley Congressman, Tom Campbell. He says that if "broad liability" was found in the anti-trust suit, the only logical thing to do would be breaking-up the corporation. What do you guys think? Is that the only solution? The alternative is regulation, which no one seems to be interested in doing.
So if Microsoft does get broken up, how will its pieces do? Let's assume for a moment that there is no collusion and all the pieces play by the DOJ set rules.
MS gets broken up into for companies covering four seperate software categories: OS, business apps, consumer apps, Internet. And then:
Freed of the need to carry the rest of the company, MS OS continues to dominate the desktop OS market. Windows 2000 is shelved and Windows NT 5.0 comes out slimmer, trimmer, and more stable than its predecessors. Consumer Windows 1.0 is actually based on Win95/98 as the work of cleaning out all the DOS and 16-bit Windows code begins in earnest. Consumer Windows still isn't very stable but it's faster than the 9x versions and becomes a hit. WinCE gets taken out of PDAs becomes the OS of choice in sub-$400 computers. MS OS tries to buy Palm Computing. Although its market share drops to %70, the market has grown so large that MS OS quickly becomes the richest software company on Earth.
Without the advantage of being able to hook its software into the hidden nooks and crannies of the OS, MS Business isn't quite so lucky. MS Business Office sees its market share quickly drop to below 60% overnight. Wordperfect is the chief beneficiary of this development and gets spun off into a independant company again. IBM fails to take advantage of this opportunity, giving MS Business some breathing room.
MS Consumer flops around for a few years making money but being largely ignored by anyone in the industry.
MS Internet sinks like a stone under the weight of its many useless and unvisited websites. MSN gets carved up and its best bits get bought out by AOL, Yahoo, and Excite.
A new browser war erupts when all four Baby Bills claim to own Internet Explorer and each comes out with their own mutually incompatible web browsers. Marc Andreeson dies of alcohol poisoning while celebrating this development. Opera software becomes dominant browser company (OK, this one's a stretch).
And what of Bill Gates you ask? Bill takes the money and runs. He buys himself a small Caribbean island and declares himself king.
Does this
I don't think that any good will come from letting mindless, spineless bureaucrats make the decision as to what constitutes an application and what the OS. At least as MS stands now, many of these decisions get made by engineers. I'll take that over politicos any day.
Can your IM do this?
We should not be discussing breaking up Microsoft, but we should be discussing breaking them on the rack!
Heh, yeah, and make them all relocate from Redmond to San Jose!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
OHH MY GOD!!! THEIR BRILLIANT!! UNDERLINES!!
Wow, my SECOND grade teacher did that.. and in red also!!
QUICK, GET ME A JAR SO THAT IF A PRECIOUS MICROSOFT BRAIN WERE TO BE RELEASED, WE COULD
save it and bury it in siberia.
I will say that they have definitly innovated on some features. They did pull together a nice _KERNEL_ for NT. But everything they do that I like, they screw it up in the end trying to be the end-all do-all.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I fully agree, but in a different way.
What *really* is the problem behind this is the closed nature of the source. Forcibly breaking up the company would just make more proprietary software companies. Some would survive, some would fall. In the end, we would probably just have better proprietary software companies.
We need to let Microsoft ride their own delusions until they fall *really* hard.... It will happen eventually, but if we break up Microsoft, it will take longer.
Well first of all, hit 'em with big fines if they're really found guilty, and maybe file criminal charges against some of the individual people who committed criminal acts (e.g. perjury, fraud, etc). That much should be obvious. I want Gates' next book to tell all about his prison assrape experiences. ;-)
But the real long-term solution is something that the government simply does not have the ability (or the right) to do: give consumers a clue. Windoze is Microsoft's property. It is not a general-purpose operating system, and 3rd parties have no guarantees that they will be able to sell products that work with it. They're just like Nintendo. I don't see anyone seriously complaining about not being able to sell Nintendo apps. Even if Nintendo had 90% of the game console market, it wouldn't be right for the govt to insist that they open up.
Microsoft is only a monopoly if their customers (not their competitors) let them be one. Joe Consumer should realize that if he buys a MS OS, he will also have to rent MS apps on a biannual cycle. Understand that, and maybe you'll think twice about committing yourself to that mess.
The worst thing we can do is regulate Microsoft and Windoze, because that will "legitamize" them and make them a Real USA standard instead of just a defacto one. That would be bad, because they simply just aren't worthy. The phone company was at least a natural entity that provided a useful product. Gates is just successful con man.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Although many of us would like to see Microsoft brought down, we want it more as a measure of revenge than because it would be good for the industry. Lets face it, the Open Source movement and similar mutations in the software development status quo are already changing the face of the software industry. Do you really think these things would have had as much impetus to get going if there had not been the spectre of Microsoft looming over everything? It is a simple, and compelling, example of the law of supply and demand in operation.
The problem with regulation is that it affects everyone, not just Microsoft. We will all pay the price for it, and the only winners will be those companies with enough money to take advantage of the new regulations and use them to hold down the competition. In other words regulation will end up with the opposite result from what we want. There is plenty of historical examples of this.
But 'we have to do something', so breaking up the 'monopoly' is a seductive notion. I would argue it is an idea with its own long reaching consequences, many of which will affect everyone for the worst. Not to mention the fact that there is no precedent I know of for breaking up a software company...
I have been thinking about this subject for a long time, and have even written an essay on the subject; An Open Letter to Orrin Hatch. Subtitled "What I would say if I were asked to Testify at the 'Market Power and Structural Change in the Software Industry' Hearings..." I wrote this approximately two weeks before the hearings by the the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the time (as now, although they are evolving) I had strong feelings about the government interfering in the Software Industry in any way, including going after Microsoft for 'Anti-Comptitive Practices'.
Not that I am a Microsoft defender mind you. I worked there for two and half years (as a contractor) and have seen the place from the inside. It is both better, and worse, than its detractors imagine. I know more about them than I really want to. But I needed to make a statement from the point of view of the average software developer just trying to make a living and get the job done for the customer. And I don't think that government intervention will have a positive effect in that regard, any more than I really want to see Microsoft replaced by Sun/AOL, Oracle or even by a resurgent Apple.
Replaced by Linux? Hmm... Now that might just be different story! But, like I said, this is already happening. The software industry, like most complex systems, is healing itself. I say we should let the economics sort themselves out and the best competitor win. I also say the Microsoft is no longer a good competitor because the rules are changing against them, just as they changed (to Microsoft's favor) in 1983...
Jack
P.S. I am working on a new essay, "The Decline and Fall of the Redmondian Empire" which gives more detail on why I think Microsoft, and the other software giants, are becoming uncompetitive dinosaurs. The one thing that might save Microsoft? Either strong regulation, or breaking it up...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
What is wanted is for wire protocols & file formats to be properly published. Properly is the key, they need to be well written, complete & timely, this is what needs to be regulated - that M$ does this properly.
The unfair bundling deals should be made illegal as well, but this is commercial stuff that the business people will understand, I fear that they may not understand the problems of standards.
Errr... even though a full-blown anti-trust action against IBM never took place, IBM *did* operate under a consent decree from 1956 through 1996 that limited its ability to behave monopolistically in the hardware market.
It is impossible to predict the exact impact that it had, but the growth of the computer hardware industry in the 1960's might have been significantly stifled if the Feds had given IBM the "freedom to innovate".
To make the leap from "federal anti-trust action" (which has an approx 100-year history, and hasn't managed to utterly crushed the American Way Of Life(tm) in all of that time) to "bureaucrats dictating what code to write, who you can it be sold to (sic)" is just absurd. You might as well argue that a ban on assault rifles will lead to Green Berets kicking down your door to impound your pocket knife...
Access is a database format. Oracle doesn't document their format as far as I know, nor does Informix or Ingres or Sybase. Granted that Access is much smaller and considered a "desktop" database.
I guess my point here is that things like SQL were invented so that you didn't have know the format of a database.
How about Access? We have alot of data in access that I'd love to be able to get at from an apache/perl combination. I know some of the office documents are 'documented', but some of their docs are really lousy too.
Office already runs on the next most popular
OS: MacOS. Having Office on MAC didn't cause
Windows to lose out. Having Office on some
variant of UNIX wouldn't either.
Well, if you'd read the rest of the statement, you'd realize that I stated FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A MULTI PLATFORM USER. Since IE doesn't run on most of the platforms I use, it scores 0 on any scale. I agree, "Get a clue."
Sometimes the simple solutions are the best ones.
--
As a long-time reader of IBM SNA specs, I can assure you that even if you can force someone to provide documentation, you can't force them to make the documentation match the actual behaviour of the product. Every emulator I've seen that was based on IBM specs DID NOT WORK in a real-world environment because the products they were emulating DID NOT WORK like the specs said they did.
I hope they do break them up AND force them to release source code...
/*M$ code here*/
and at the end, a little note:
/*Copyright Steve Jobs and Co 1985*/
hehehehehheheh
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
They own all of their code in the operating system. They could open that.
However,
By open, I don't mean GPL, or anything equivalent. I do think that they should be required to publish a current snapshot of the complete source (excluding proprietary pieces owned by another company, so long as they don't own more than 50% of that other company, either directly or indirectly). But this doesn't mean that I feel that they should be required to allow others to copy their code. I think that they should be allowed to copyright the snapshot (no trade secrets now, right. That's what they would really be giving up.) And that normal copyright laws should be applied from that point on.
Then split the company into at least five pieces, perhaps alphabetically, by the last name of the employee, or some other irrelevant method. Give them six months to reshuffle personnel. Then split the ownership, split the companies, etc. Everyone should be allowed to choose which company their stock would be in (the more popular company would end up with more stockholders.. so that should even out). And we'd have (5?) monster companies rampaging around the countryside. But they would have a common heritage (the copyrighted source). And separate stockholders. Could be lively, but it would bring back the competition.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But the point is that the oil refinement companies which were split off of Standard *are* competitive with one another. The important thing is not the history of various companies' corporate tree's. Its whether or not those companies compete. And the oil refinement companies do compete.
There may be many good reasons not to break up Microsoft, but the example set by Standard and children is not one of them.
Aside from the, ahem, legality vs. morality of Antitrust, I really don't want to see government stepping into technology (again).
The last thing any of us need are bureaucrats telling us how to run our businesses, what components we may put in our own software, etc. I don't want to grovel to a congresman because I want to include a 3d shooter client in my Linux distribution, or label a window with a dirty word.
Using the government to dictate how software is engineered (Internet Explorer with Windows OS's), how it is marketed (discounts for vendors installing Windows OS's, exclusive OS contracts with hardware vendors), is a DANGEROUS precedent to set.
The clamor for government control of Microsoft is like begging bureaucrats to put leashes on all of us. I don't like that at all.
Why split consumer apps apart from commercial/enterprise apps?
To stop them comming up with, say, an enterprise e-commerce server with ActiveDooDads(TM) and then having ActiveDooDads(TM) only work properly with their own client software.
Breaking up MS won't help anything.
/do/ define the terms it isn't hard to prohibit bundling practices whether you break up the company or not.
The consent decree MS signed banned them from "bundling" with the OS, but allowed them to "enhance" it. The problem is it didn't define the two terms, which left Microsoft free to call anything it wanted to "bundle" an "OS enhancement" if that was the only way to get it on consumer desktops, even when MS had always called it an "application" before.
If this definition isn't laid out first, breaking them up into Apps and OS won't help because the "OS" company can still play the same word game with any Netscape-like Windows-platform-threat application. And if you
OEMs need Windows to make money. MS-OS could still use that as a club against companies that dip their toes into alternative OS waters. MS-Apps would have similar leverage with Office. Both MSes would still have the money and the clout to buy, bully, or threaten their way into any OEM/ISP/VAR/developer shop/etc that thinks about going with cheaper, more reliable, or more liberating alternatives. Ok so the two bullies wouldn't be able to work together as well, but they'd still be bullies.
Breaking them up won't stop this.
The rules ought to be:
They can't bundle. They can't offer discounts on one product (the one the OEM needs) if the OEM takes one MS wants them to take.
They must publish the prices they charge their OEM customers.
OEMs should be free to control their own products bootup, desktop, and functionality. The market, not MS, should decide which companies do it well and which don't. MS cannot treat PC vendors as if they were simply the PC-assembly arm of Microsoft.
Any feature they add to the OS must perform it's jobs via a published API, and if the functionality isn't a strict OS requirement it must be removeable. If it's required functionality, it must still be replaceable by another package that provides those APIs.
None of this ought to be that difficult to enforce. All of it is required to keep MS under control. None of it will be accomplished by breaking up MS.
If that were true, nothing would stop someone from making a version of Linux, with proprietary extensions with closed source.
Mr. Gates revolution was the concept of software copyrights.
Yes, but how do you keep the OS company from pulling an IE. They could integrate an office Word into the operating system, and state that it is an integral part of the OS. Seriously, I don't see how a browser, while very important, is anymore part of the OS than a wordprocessor is, which is equally important. So anyways back to my point, what exactly defineds an OS, and how do you keep the OS from creating more than just an OS. Also how would this stop aquisitions of such companies as internix or the destruction of java. Because I can easily see how a programming language or a POSIX interface is part of the operating system. So whats the line here?? it needs to be clearly defined what the MS OS company would be allowed to deal in.
Ever since I installed the beta version of Windows 98 almost 3 years ago I have been saying that Microsoft has an unfair advantage over it's competitors because it can integrate it's products into the desktop so nicely (because it controls the desktop). Even before Internet Explorer came out I was shaking my head at poor Netscape who didn't stand a chance unless Netscape's Desktop (which I can't remember the name of - and it failed anyways) came out. The only advantage I could see then, and now is not their money, their numbers - it's that they can integrate their applications and break other products attempts at integration.
:)
The Operating System needs to be broken off from all the software development. No more "Can't package applications with the OS". Now it needs to be "Can't make applications."
The Department of Justice tried regulation. They told Microsoft to regulate themselves. The government isn't in a position to watch internal company activities - they didn't know that IE would be bundled with Windows until it was too late. Neither is the government in a position to create a watchdog committee just to keep track of such things. Such a committee would be a heavy cost to taxpayers, and who would lead the committee? Richard M. Stallman I would hope.
I know there are laws involving Monopolies. What are the various powers given to the Federal Government over corporations deemed monopolistic? Can they disband the company? I know they can break them up, I'm certain they could regulate them. What else can they do? It might be interesting to iterate over all the possible outcomes.
But, how long for a retrial? Microsoft will come up with something to force a retrial if they lose this first bout. How long can they stall after the decision? I imagine that the Judge would say something like, "Pay 1 Billion dollars a day for every day after the first of January, if you do not abide by my ruling." Will they pay? Didn't the DOJ originally ask Bill Gates to pay 1 million dollars a day for everyday that he wouldn't come to testify (or stop lying or something?). Did they pay then, or did they sidestep the fine?
I'd like to have more updates on the situation. Too bad there isn't a streaming net-cam in the Judge's chamber. Everyone in the computer world is with bated breathe waiting for the decision. However I recall hearing many times from various reporters, "Microsoft chose not to blah blah, so that their appeal will be stronger".
Big Rant. Lot's of typos and flaming opinions. Don't kill me. Please.
Joseph Elwell.
"IBM controlled the majority of the hardware market, not the software that made the hardware work."
I think you're mistakenly referring to the IBM PC. This was not the subject of the anti-trust lawsuit. It was the IBM OS/360 mainframe, for which they sold the hardware and software. This was also before the PC industry, at a time when a "computer" meant a room size machine.
And they controlled everything, not just the API and OS.
Some regulation wouldn't help. If they just broke up Microsoft, then another company could potentially do the same thing in 50 years from now. If they make some -->REASONABLE-- regulations, then something like this wouldn't happen again.
Nobody can come along and do the same thing as Microsoft but better, faster and cheaper because they control their APIs and can change them on a whim to make sure that even if someone does try to come out with a Win32-compatible OS on the market, it will break against all of their apps with the next revision which they would certainly quickly release. Assuming they don't just outright sue the crap out of whomever is trying to market that clone OS on "look and feel" or some kind of patent or copyright issues.
The reason that Microsoft can retain this control is because of their de-facto monopoly. They have marketed themselves into position that if you're NOT Win32-compatible, you can't compete. Linux isn't truly a competitor with Microsoft since it's not a "Win32 capable operating system." NOBODY competes with Microsoft in their market.
In this "IBM Bad Guys" world, where we had IBM and Apple as the hardware vendors being the rough equivalent of Microsoft and Linux as operating systems today, don't think of Linux as an IBM clone that works better, cheaper and faster, think of Linux as the "Apple"-equivalent of operating systems - it's a completely different beast. Imagine that, in the "IBM Bad Guys" scenario, instead of being able to buy an IBM-clone, you had to migrate your entire business over to Apple to get away from IBM. You might do it if IBM screwed you over big enough, but the break-even point is very high, even if you're really sick of IBM screwing you. It gets worse if IBM keeps an eye on things to make sure that sticking with IBM is just barely less painful than switching.
IBM lost the hardware wars while Apple won their fight for keeping control of their hardware platform. Now, a good 15 years later, look at the state of the IBM-clone industry versus the state of the Apple-clone industry and tell me which one is more energetic and vital. Now, replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in this scenario and you see what people fear from a Microsoft-dominated computer industry.
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
This just shows the whole fallacy of the breaking up idea.
If Microsoft had been two separate companies, an "OS company" and an "Application company", before the start of the browser war, which of those two companies would have built a browser?
Answer? The OS company. Netscape was touting their browser as a new computing platform that would "make the operating system irrelevant". It always was a bigger threat to the OS business than the applications business. Sure, maybe the application company might have built a browser as well (remember when it seemed like every company in existance was writing a browser?), but it still would have settled down to a battle between Netscape and the OS company, me thinks.
The real solution is just to let companies compete in the marketplace. If Netscape had written the better browser, they'd still be on top today.
I actually think that breaking up Microsoft would be a good thing. As much as I hate to admit it, Microsoft is here to stay. Linux isn't going to kill them anytime soon.
That being said, I would like to see Microsoft produce some quality applications. They do have some. Visual J++ is my Java IDE of choice, and I'll take IE5 over Netscape any day.
If the Operating Systems team was separated from the Application team, then maybe they'd stop trying to produce bastard hybrids and focus on one thing at a time. With some massive scope reduction, I think that all the talent at Microsoft could produce some killer apps.
--Joe
Surprisingly enough, I've found that few of the comments so far on this discussion have involved "screaming". Somehow I have to wonder if you work at Microsoft or think Windows is "way kewl d00d" as compared to.. well.. practically anything else. =P
At any rate, it's not our decision..? Do you really fscking think so?? Of course not, you fool, we're simply voicing our opinions. I can't remember the last time a Slashdotter likened himself (or herself.. or itself, in the case of some *peer*) unto God(dess) Almighty Him(Her)self. Do you?
The government is supposed to step in when a business performs unfair business practices. Regardless of how misguided certain sectors of the U.S. government may be, I can only laugh at those who think that Microsoft has performed in all fairness with regards to its business deals, and believe that Microsoft deserves any pressure applied to it, especially from the DoJ.
~ Kish
How can you regulate them, they will still have hidden agendas etc. The only thing left to do is break them up.
There isn't a way that you could impose regulations to prevent Microsoft from doing what it's doing and still let other companies continue to compete the way that they have until this point. Aside from Microsoft, competition has been done wonders for the industry where it exists - AMD vs Intel, Hard Drive manufacturers, Monitor makers, etc...
Microsoft is an exception to this, being that they've become the 90,000 pound gorilla among a playing field of 900 pound gorillas. They should be penalized severely should they be found guilty, but laws should not be enacted to prevent this from happening again.
If a company one day possesses the power that MSFT has over the industry, then the government should act swiftly to rebalance the power of everyone, but until then, largely leave it all alone.
Sweeping regulations would harm the entire industr would equate to punishing the entire school because the bully wouldn't stop beating up little kids.
all of you /.ers are a bunch of hypocrites. you sit there and whine about the government, and now you're all in favor of the government interfering in private industry. what's next? are you gonna cry to the government because you stubbed your toe?
the 90's have shown us one thing: if you can't compete, sue.
This is probably flamebait, so take it for what it's worth.
Does anyone else feel kinda uneasy about this?
The US government (and the US sheeple too) seem to base their idea of what constitutes good policy around revenge. "You step on our toe, we kick your ass." In fact, that's a pretty good summary of US millitary policy for the last 250 years - or at least it sums up how all the battles/wars which the US has fought started. Wars which the US has lost (e.g. 1812 invasion of Canada, Vietnam) are probably remembered differently with hindsight.
Disclaimer: It would be very easy for me to say how proud this makes me feel to be an Australian, but let's be honest. Any nation who adopts the position of "most powerful nation on Earth" (however that is defined at that point in history) would have done the same. That's human nature.
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm as concerned about Micros~1 as the next person (and on Slashdot, it's a pretty safe bet as to what the next person thinks about this!), and to say that I'm annoyed as to what they have done to the software industry is an understatement at best. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when the wolves start baying for blood. The only thing I can think of that's worse than a software industry being controlled by the likes of Micros~1 is a software industry being controlled by a lynch mob. I can almost see the pitchforks and flaming torches being handed out as we speak...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
One microsoft is bad enough. We don't need more than one.
At this point, it doesn't matter what the DOJ does. Microsoft is collapsing under its own weight. Like many companies that get large and continue to add departments and bureaucracy, their internal communication will get worse. Their responsiveness will get slower.
Example: I have spent the last two weeks researching MS Site Server and Personalization and Management Server. My employer is gung-ho to use it. If you don't already know, P&M is basically an LDAP server which Microsoft has embraced and extended -- badly.
I know what I can do with straight LDAP -- the Microsoft P&M wrapper is cumbersome and restrictive. The APIs are a pain in the ass. Here we have a simple, well-documented protocol. Microsoft chooses to add a few painful abstraction layers and then they give you a default database schema. Maybe it works for you, maybe it doesn't, but don't even THINK of messing with it.
And the installation of Site Server makes my 1996 Slackware install look like a walk in the park. Take a look at http://support.mi crosoft.com/support/siteserver/install-nosql.asp. This pretty much shoots the legs out from the "NT is easier to set up and administrate" argument. The darn thing won't work unless your box is set up JUST SO.
It looks to me like the Site Server developers had no clue what the rest of the NT projects were doing. This is supposed to be a major product for Microsoft and it doesn't even work with their own latest service packs.
It will take a while, but stuff like this will be the end of "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft". The organization is too large to operate efficiently anymore. Their products have grown to the point of becoming unmanageable.
BTW -- When I grumbled to my manager about the Site Server install, he said, "But now you'll be able to give expert advice on Site Server installation." My response? "Yes, and that advice would be 'stay the hell away from it'."
-- end rant --
MS has done plenty of things wrong but do we really think the government can do better? Even given that market is made up of individuals who are idiots, is a government imposed solution better than a market driven one? As anti-MS as I feel viscerally, I'm not sure I trust the government to do anything right in this case.
Oh gimme a break. Nobody is punishing Microsoft for being successful. Only idiots keep trying to trot out that tired line. Microsoft is being prosecuted for breaking some pretty well-established laws. They are called anti-trust laws. They are part of what keeps our current system running properly. Without them the system probably wouldn't work. It would at least need significant changes to make it work, and then it wouldn't really be the same system. Just because the recent Republican administrations have resisted enforcing the laws doesn't mean they have disappeared.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ah, but if we take a truly academic definition of what is an OS, and what is an Application, the OS, really does lose all of it's value. Picture all the low-level apps bundled with Windows being shifted away towards the Office Corp. (notepad, calculator, ftp, explorer.exe, etc). What you have left is a rather unattractive blob of code that boots your computer, but leaves it largely unusable. So Gateway would probably want to bundle some "apps" with that OS too, at least the basic stuff that would equate to what Windows 95 is today, to offer the same functionality to consumers. Where other companys could compete is, create other OSes that would supplant that layer, but what does this say for Solaris, Mac OS, BeOS, and other competitors? LOTS of apps bundled with the OS. And in the end, still total dominance for whatever company makes this "middle-layer" part of the OS or the user-level apps that give access to the low-level OS, in this case, the Applications division of Microsoft, Office Corp.
So I basically think this split up think is bunk, and we need JAIL TIME.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Significant regulation makes investors get real nervous real quick,"
What an understatement. Watch the prices fall faster than a NT machine thrown out a window.
---
Allow anyone who wants to enter in a licensing agreement. I think that would be all that was required. As a general rule source code should be available, and I think this might be a good time to set the precendence. Not good having the government doing what the marketplace should have done. Stupid pointy hair IT managers are obviously responsible for the rise of the might M$. I'd really like to just ignore them and make them go away, personally.
Just laugh at the vendor selling NT solutions, they'll get the picture eventually. Hopefully.
.02
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
..how do you figure one has a trial without government involvement? Did I miss something? Is the judicial branch of government no longer a branch of government but rather a group of vigilante crime-fighters?
At any rate, if you believe that the U.S. government is worse than Microsoft.. you're first and foremost ignorant anyway, because obviously you have a problem distinguishing separate parts of the U.S. government. Ever heard of checks and balances? Apparently not. But back to my point.. you might as well just move to another country. And if you already do live in another country, you should probably just shut up. I'm thinking you do live in the U.S. though. Trust me, the U.S. government as a whole is not precisely one of the circles of hell, ok?
~ Kish
People tend to think in black & white. Reality occurs in various intermediate shades. If Microsoft is "guilty", the question is - guilty of what, and what must be the remedy? And what purpose will it serve?
First of all, just about ALL the *specific* issues that were argued in the anti-trust trial (ISP arm twisting, browser bundling, etc) are already obsolete (did you notice how nobody is suggesting these days that MS should seperate the browser from the OS?) . This raises profound questions:
* how must a monopoly in software be proven? And how can its misuse be proven?
* And how must the remedy be issued, when you know for certain that by the time you make the judgement, the original complaints are obsolete in this fast moving industry.
For starters, monopoly for MS is not as simple as it appears, since you're narrowing the industry to the "PC operating systems" arena. If you narrow down segments of industry, Oracle is a monopoly in the midrange server database market (HP tunes its OS to run faster on Oracle, is that a sign of too much power?), and IBM is a monopoly in the mainframe database segment (easily more than 90% of S/370 machines use DB2, both of them ibm products). Similarly, Palm may be said to be a monopoly in the handheld segment.
I think if any of the above companies were subject to the same scrutiny as MS, there would be several issues of leverage of market share.
Now...even if a company is proven to have a monopoly in that segment, and abuse it, what do you do? This is not like the telephone industry, where a product doesn't change for 20 years. The original issues are already obsolete.
Keep in mind that one major reason for IBM's downfall was a 10 year lawsuit by the same Dept. of Justice. The case? IBM was bundling its mainframe hardware, OS, and database products. At that time, geeks were cheering on two young companies that dared to take on the evil monolithic empire - Microsoft and Apple.
Well, guess what? 20 years later - IBM is STILL bundling its hardware, OS, and database products. Why is the DoJ not caring? Because it's a dead, obsolete market. The mainframe has been overtaken by the PC, and all the issues that were so fiercely argued decades ago, became irrelevant. It's the same deal. IBM caved in due to the lawsuit, which resulted in literally a warehouse full of documents they had to shovel around.
Should IBM have been hurt so badly because it played rough in the mainframe market, knowing that it was an unquestioned giant (and not knowing that it was surrounded by nimble, faster velociraptors)? Because of the DoJ case, IBM had reached the point where lawyers were attending every meeting, and had to approve of every plan. It killed them. Did they deserve it?
I don't think so. You may think MS is truly bad and evil, but the reality is they are just like any other company. And the reality is also that it's better for the govt. to stay away. This is very difficult to realise when you hate Microsoft so badly, but keep in mind that many young geeks hated IBM just as badly, and the point still stands - if you wound a company that will be obsolete in a decade or two because it played rough, it will always look unfair from a historical viewpoint.
Keep the long view in mind. Breaking up the company may seem tempting, but you'll only hurt the industry - the same way the DOJ's interference in IBM's day-to-day affairs hurt the mainframe market nobody cares about now. Keep that in mind.
Although the libertarian in me hates having the government step in to meddle with businesses, it seems like breaking up MS is the only solution. Even if it's only split between Operating system and Apps, would there really be any bad consequences of doing this?
Government regulations will never work in the computer industry, they're way too slow.
Of course, if Microsoft is left as it is the Linux bandwagon will continue to be fueled by the anti-ms sentiment, which might be enough to eventually effectivley solve the trust problem.
It seems to me that most people, in their anti-microsoft frenzy, have forgotten about what got this whole circus started, namely: MS uses its knowledge of the OS they created to get an unfair advantage towards competition, as well as forcing their applications down our throats. Not to mention the fact that they like to kill off competition by giving away their own products for free, since there are enough other products to make money off anyway... So, provided they are guilty, what is the solution? Having them open-source the OS? This actually has nothing to do with the problem. Will we force every company out there in the software business to open-source their products then? Breaking them up? That would keep them from providing the apps company that would result from getting information from the OS company? Regulating them? Hmpf. What about the 'keep the internet uncensored' cries? As much as I dislike MS, a solution should be found which is fair, ie which we wouldn't be afraid to apply to other products, including Linux. Besides, as far as I can recall most Linux distributions come with versions of Apache, sendmail, pop3, you-name-it servers. A compiler. Whatever. Okay, they're open-sourced. This arguably also hurts commercial apps. The open-source vs closed-source debate is, in my opinion, moot...The only thing that matters is quality code...If it's open, very good. If it's closed, too bad... And yes, I _do_ advocate Linux use and throw out NT servers whenever I can... It seems there's a difficult and long road ahead (pun intended :))) ) .
Its a cycle tho...the phone companies are buying each other out again...they'll have to be broken up again soon too...but breaking up MS would proably solve the problem, too much power in anyone's (or company's or govs) hands is generally a Bad Thing (TM). And today money seems to equal power, so breaking them up into lots of smaller pieces would spead the money more.
*shrug* doesnt mean it isnt the right thing to do...in this case the outcome (if M$ is broken up) is certainly beneficial.
I used to favor breakup, but now I'm leaning toward a more radical and direct solution:
The trouble we're having with Microsoft is only a symptom of a larger problem. If not them, then somebody else would be doing it.
I don't like the idea of more laws, but it seems clear that the current laws have holes in them. If the above regs are applied to Microsoft as well as all of their competitors, it will deal with their abuses nicely. No need to single anyone out.
Oh, what's that you say--MS are the only ones who would be affected by the preload and driver thing? Awww, too bad.
I have been arguing this for some time, but with a small twist. MS has a court appointed special master who must approve major releases, and that approval requires that program work as advertised under Wine or any other environment that is totally independent of MS.
I don't care how MS does it, all I care about is the results. MS Office 2001 doesn't support feature X under Wine? Either take it out, toss resources towards Wine, or delay your shipment. You don't even have to port your application to new platforms, but you *can't* say that if you want to run Word 2001 (for whatever reason) that you must run it on Windows 2001.
This is a specific remedy directly aimed at the offending behavior since MS applications and MS OSes are no longer tied together.
Coyote-san on soon
I'm not sure who suggested it - perhaps Richard Stallman himself - but a friend of mine and I have been chatting about MS being forced to publish all of it's standards from now until eternity. No more of this proprietary BS.
.02
It started with Dr. DOS and it just kept rolling. If it wasn't for their underhanded tactics, they wouldn't even be around anymore. I say the DOJ should take hold of their short-n-curlies and pull like the dickens.
After all, what has been been the root of their stranglehold? Taking something, butchering it, then forcing everyone to use it via FUD and calling it the "industry standard".
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I don't think MS should be broken up, that will only cause us to have more targets. There should be a commission made up of uber geeks (Stallman is a necessity here, boy wouldn't that be fun to see RMS rampaging through the halls of Redmond) to review windows source code, it would be this committees responsibility to make sure that MS has properly licensed all of the code and can provide proof of this. If any pirated code is found appropriate law suits should be filed. I also liked the idea that MS wouldn't be able to acquire any new technology to windows for 5 years, this could possibly force them to do some much needed bug fixes and to stablize windows. All in all I feel that MS has already shot themselves in the foot and all that is left is time for them to realize it for themselves.
2) Remove all private interfaces between the operating system development group and all other software development groups at Microsoft
You are hitting at the heart of the integrated product strategy at Microsoft. Consider the introduction of OLE2 in 1993. Microsoft released the operating system feature (OLE) as part of MS Office, and as a tool in VisualBasic. Users instantly had an example of the functionality and could go out and implement it themselves.
Compare this to Apple OpenDoc. Apple released the API, but refused to 'integrate' it in ClarisWorks or the MacOS Finder. Result was that nobody really understood the possibilities and very few applications ever bothered with the API.
If a brick wall is instituted between the MS OS group and the Apps group, the result is that most new OS APIs will go nowhere. Why would an independant Applicaiton company spend money implementing SuperDCOM+++, when the existing interfaces just work? Imagine, the Windows API could actually stabilize (and be reverse engineered)!
This would essentialy kill Windows, Inc. as a software business, BTW. The "Stable API" model only works for UNIX because the companies don't give a crap about the commodity market and are chasing the very profitable high-end hardware market. The Unix APIs themselves have very little commercial value as software (see Linux).
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
since when does microsoft make hardware? keyboards and mice hardly have any effect on the industry as a whole. Unless you count the frustration from those stupid M$ keys..
Why must they necessarily be broken up by product?
In my mind, the best way to proceed would be to split them into three companies, each taking the code for ALL Microsoft products with them. Evenly divide the cash and senior executives between the new entities.
This way they are all on equal footing and must actually COMPETE with each other. Isn't competition what the whole thing was about in the first place?
C'mon, Bill, at least have the guts to use your real name. :)
No amount of screaming about MSHTML, Frontpage extensions, or perverted Java here or in other places has ever had any imapact on Microsoft plans to subvert and capture standards.
Please uncomment include_adult_settings in your /etc/realityperception.conf
1. It launches a hell of a lot faster. I don't really notice the differences in rendering time, just the difference in the time it takes to launch. Don't flame me, I am talking only of my particular system, YMMV. ;-)
2. It has more robust support for frames.
3. It has more complete and more robust support for Cascading Style Sheets.
4. Overall MSIE5 handles mangled or poor HTML a lot better than Netscape. Some would say this is a problem with the people writing HTML, and I would agree. Not being able to fix their mark-up, however, I prefer to use a browser that won't actually crash when it encounters bad code.
I know there are HTML purists out there who intensely dislike frames and/or CSS. I agree that they can be annoying if improperly used. However, if used correctly they can really make a page look nice and add to the overall experience of visiting that web site.
BTW, I am in no way an HTML professional. I'll take care of the infrastructure and leave the applications to those who are good at it, thank you.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
It should be http://www.sff.net/people/jac kb/openletter2hatch.html
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
This has been exactly my point since this whole thing started! Regardless of what you think about where Windows started, or how much Microsoft has "stolen" from other companies to make it, Windows is where it is today because Microsoft worked at it, and tinkered with it, and programmed it until it worked the way you see today.
Microsoft has put time, money and effort into a program that many, many people happen to use (myself included). Sure, it has a lot of flaws, but it has its upside as well. How long did it take me to get VPN working under Linux 2.2? About 2 hours. Under Win 2000 RC2? 2 minutes.
Point being, its a good OS with some good points, and no one, not the government, not private industry, should be able to steal the work of another company. As the previous poster said, should we ruin the jobs, and possibly lives (at least for a short time while they attempt to find other work) of Microsoft employees? Not everyone was personally involved with creating Windows, and, even then, do they deserve to be "punished," just because the worked for MS?
AFAIK (I use a Mac, so I don't have to deal with this) while Win9x appears to support long filenames, it's really a facade over the still-extant 8.3 naming system. Much like Windows is basically a very overgrown DOS.... Anyhow, if you wanted to name a file "Microsoft" (which is nine characters) the underlying file system would _actually_ name the file "Micros~1" plus some suffix. Presumably, as more files are created which use the same characters in the beginning, they go up, e.g. ~1, ~2, ~3...
Finally you might get "M~999999" at which point the filesystem, if it hasn't already broken down probably would then.
The reason for using it is probably to draw attention to the fact that MS has made the file system easier to deal with only if everything works perfectly. But in fact, it is a very half-assed solution. A better solution would have been a totally new file system which natively supported long file names. Give enough advance warning and only a few, generally unsupported apps will break when the change is made.
In the Mac camp, we're currently in the warning stage although I can't think of any app (other than some MS ones, actually!) which follow bad practices like hard-coded pathnames and such.
The short answer: When people say "Micros~1" they're deriding MS as lacking in technical ability, or at best lacking the balls to use it. And they're justified too, how about that?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I wold regulate them and the regulations wold be simple and enforceable.
;), 2 and 3 wold reduce the work for MS
1 : Don't use any undocumented system calls. If any MS app is found
to be talking to the OS in a way not known to other developers they
need merely tell the FCC and MS must produce full documentation within
a specified time ( 25 days is good ) or release the source code for
the app in question.
2 : Volume pricing only. You don't tell them how to price any item
( except for #3 below ) but all prices must be based only on volume.
This means that if MS negotiates a deal with some small 10,000 box
per year PC OEM for Windows and Office at $50, then $50 becomes the
cap for Dell and IBM and they can only negotiate to go down to $40
or whatever.
3 : each item must have it's own price if it ever has it's own price.
This means that if OEM A buys Office and Windows while OEM B buys
Office, Windows and Encarta then the deference in price must be
attributable to the cost of Encarta ( Assuming both OEMs have similar
volumes ). Negative prices are not allowed and anyone who goes above
the volume of the guy who got it for free is entitled to free licenses
too.
While #1 could increase the workload on the technical staff ( More jobs
for neards is always good
since it wold be in there interest to draw up price charts and stick
to them. All those hundreds of negotiators wold be out of work.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Boy, I really hate MS don't I?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Added to which, we should all be generally opposed to government interference, lest a product we care about be their next target.
"An Architectural Review Board should be formed to maintain the source trees. "
This is a really dumb idea - a govt. committee that decides software architechture.... Have you even gotten your fucking driver license without waiting for hours? This would be the kiss of death.
I know you hate MS, but just look at countries with heavy govt. regulation on private enterprise, and think a little about it.
Your suggestions may sound nice in principle, but I'll bet you money it will take at least 6 months before this "review board" of yours makes any decision.
Copyrights anti-capitalist? Sounds like a bastardization of capitalist theory. In capitalism one is free to do what one wishes with the products of their labour. If I write a book, slave over it, and put all my productive abilities into it, don't you think that I have the right to sell that book to whomever like?
Capitalism, after all, is based on trade, and it is not a sale if both the seller and the buyer both agree to this trade of value. You can't, or shouldn't be able to, copyright, patent, etc. ideas, but implimentations, yes.
Really? Your second grade teacher stood over you as you wrote everything and underlined it in red as you wrote each word?
Yes, it *IS* an innovation. No other software product was doing that when MS introduced it. You may not think it's a very big innovation, but most innovations are just that. Small.
As someone else said, breaking up Microsoft is like breaking up an anthrax spore: you get two of what you didn't want one of.
Regulating Microsoft is like the IRS taking over the Mustang Ranch and still operating it as a brothel: the customers still get screwed, just not as creatively. (I heard the Mustang Ranch is going to be operated as a real ranch for real horses.)
What's left? Bill Gates laughed at a million dollar a day fine. We don't want him to laugh at the proposed remedy; we want him scared enough to modify his behavior.
How about a nice round billion dollar (US) fine?
I'm serious. It's somewhere between a slap on the wrist and chopping a hand off. In and of itself, it doesn't prevent Microsoft from being bad in the future, but if future offenses can lead to future significant fines, it might get their attention. They might change their ways, they might agree to a settlement. I haven't heard any other proposal that, realistically could lead that way.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Subject says it all...
The level of intelligence /.'s are demonstrating on this thread is frightenly low.
The big issues with a breakup would, arguably, be how.
Consider first that the Gov't has approximately zero reason to demand that MS products be open-sourced in any way. Why?
* Not everything used by MS is written there, or owned by them.
* They've got patent-sharing arrangements with other companies, already. Lots of entanglements there, too.
* They're MS's major revenue stream -- specifically, the Office and OS groups, really. A number of divisions are not profitable, IIRC. In Bill's shoes, if the Gov't did this, there's not much reason for Mr. Gates to not simply start the process of shutting down the company and refusing to sell, develop or support any of its products anymore -- which would NOT be a good thing for the hordes of people utterly dependent on MS software.
Separating those two groups -- or, arguably more relevant to the lawsuit -- IE and the OS group, might be more interesting. If one wanted to go as far as that, actually.
The other remedies of requiring open APIs (which exist to a degree, methinks) -- which would have to be permanently open by consent decree -- and explicitly forbidding bundling deals or punitive pricing with manufacturers may possibly achieve similar desired effects with less chaos.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
i agree. breaking up microsoft won't do much, it will only provide a loophole for someone else to exploit and do the same thing. while i don't believe that people have paid enough attention to the trial, they have heard enough to know that there is a world beyond microsoft/intel. too bad i can't say that about the majority and aol, but alas! i digress. i have talked to numerous people who once thought that intel was the only chip maker and they now ask me about the athalon chips from amd. other people who thought only m$ made operating systems now ask me about linux and how they can get a copy of it. these people may not yet grasp that they don't need the newest and fastest as soon as it hits the market, but they do now know that there are alternatives. /closely/.
maybe switching to linux from microsoft is not the answer for some (the gods know that i have told several people (and in two cases companies) that they should stay with windows. it simply wasn't in their best interests to move. but they did have the knowledge to see if the other options were good for them.
it seems that we can probably allow m$ to continue as a whole company. i certainly wouldn't want someone to say that my house was to big as one unit and that i have to cut it into 4 parts and connect it with sidewalks. the people now have the knowledge (it remains to be seen if they are intelligent enough to know what to do with it) to make their own decisions. microsoft just needs to be watched
..M$ has TONS of parts in other companies, in all sort of industries, if the company gets split where do these go? What side does Bill take (*coughMarketingcough*)? This thing is huge. The ramifications go on and on, like linux.
+&x
See www.moraldefense.com
I don't agree. Microsoft uses its OS monopoly to further its apps; and its (Office) apps monopoly to further its OS. If they were broken into two companies: OS and apps, this would no longer be feasible. Notice how the absence of certain key applications on the Mac platform, VB, Access, Netmeeting, for example, helps to keep the Mac from being viewed as a serious competitor to Windows by businesses. Do you imagine they simply didn't have the means to port these apps to the Mac? Do you think they wouldn't have made money with these apps on the Mac? Of course not. Open your eyes to their real game. But notice also how Microsoft had to intervene to keep Apple from going belly up a few years ago. Otherwise they would have been easily nailed by the DOJ. It's a cynical game they're playing, imo. And in the final analysis, it's not about computers--it's about unlimited power and wealth. Greed.
Alternatively, I would be happy if the court ordered Bill Gates to take a pie in the face during every speaking engagement and product launch. But then, I'm a small, petty man in a lot of ways.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
Bite the hand.
That's my theory about this article, too. It's interesting to note (once again) that all of these competitors that repeatedly got out-foxed by Microsoft are now trying to bring the government into the industry in a big way. I predict that there will be twice as many lawsuits as there were in years past before another so-called "monopoly" arrives in the software industry. And the people who suffer the most will be the people who use and make software, either commercial or freeware.
Free as in beer or speech? While you can download RH Linux gratis, they are definitely out there to make a buck, as they are indeed a company. A highly respectable company in light of others (*cough* who were we talking about again? *cough*), but a company nonetheless. Certainly free speech though. Now, Sun.. Free speech? Ah.. I'm a little scared by the SCSL, myself. Not exactly free speech or free beer. So, since everyone knows about Red Hat Linux, but not everyone is a Sun fanatic, you care to give some examples to back yourself up?
Are you smoking crack?
Great things happen?? What the hell ..? AOL.. provides crappy ISP service. Netscape.. provides crappy browser that doesn't even bother to conform to the W3C's standards, opting instead to add more bloat (if a browser can't even render style sheets properly, and is supposed to, it's a piece of shit. pure and simple). Sun.. strives to make money hand over fist through extreme hype and overcapitalized marketing (quite unlike Microsoft, don't you think?). Red Hat.. not so crappy, though I won't say they make the best distro in the world. Good, but so far Debian looks to be the real badass around here. ;)
~ Kish
> Corporations are not created by governments they're created by individuals.
You might want to stop by your local town hall and ask them who creates businesses/corporations?
i.e. _HOW_ does a corporation exist in the FIRST place? People go to the government and ask them to create a corporation. The business license is "proof of ownership" that the corporation exists.
(And yes you can engage in free enterprise without a business licnce, how do you think people did business before corporations existed? By Trusts.
Cheers
Breakup should be: MS Apps/MS OS/MS Net This helps prevent Application or Internet tie ins, and lets others actually compete with Microsoft.
Windows, Inc. -- Win9x, WinNT, WinCE
Everything Else, Inc. -- err.. everything else...
The point of this being that the OS should be separate from everything. Everybody should have the same access to it. That means development tool makers, application makers, etc. should all become property of another company. That company may choose to divide itself up or sell off some of the apps or tools, but that's up to them. As long as the company with the OS isn't making apps or development software, I'll be ok with it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But first, I agree that Microsoft should be broken up. Right now it's too easy for them to use the ubiquity of Office to prop up Windows sales; it's too easy for them to refuse to license VBA to a potential Office competitor; it's too easy for them to design Windows to give an unfair advantage to their own applications software--it's a self-reinforcing web of schemes to prop up Windows forever, giving them the ability, maybe, to dictate things to the world like The One True personal secure e-banking client. Which no one can really interoperate with unless they pay Microsoft.
Breaking them up functionally would at least cut the links of that web, leading perhaps to things like Office for Linux. It wouldn't necessarily prevent the OS or Office companies from abusing their respective monopolies--so maybe Microsoft should be split into clones--but it's a minimally invasive start.
Anyway. People have suggested that Microsoft be forced to publish their file formats and other interoperability standards.
I think that's a bad idea. How could you legislate it? How would you define which file formats are important enough to require opening? Legalistically! But then twenty years from now, people will roll their eyes at what people thought a 'file format' was way back in 2000, and the rigid rule will be seen as hampering technology. And then there will be a rush to change the law, and software companies will point to how important they are to the economy, and how they should have input; they will be given input, and the rule will end up a stick they use to beat each other over the head with.
Bah.
Instead, we need to let open standards acquire the standing of common-sense morality. Really.
I mean, the evil of closed standards is a given in the academic/old-school Internet/open-source world, but not always in the world at large. We think we have reasons to see it that way; we believe that closed standards invite abuse. Much of the rest of the world hasn't had reason to care--until computing threatened to upset everything, mostly via the Internet.
When society organized itself in new ways in the past, new moral orders came into being. When municipal governments became large and bureaucratic in the Industrial Revolution, people realized that there was 'nepotism'--something as natural as doing favors for your family could become a corrupting influence. When the printing press came around, people realized that somebody had to retain the mostly exclusive right to copy texts. We take those principles for granted now, but they had to be invented.
Hopefully by the time computing is really ubiquitous, people will have realized that society can't stand for the corrupting influence of closed standards, and using closed standards will be come to be seen as a bit sleazy and antisocial. I hope. (And then open standards will become a legal principle, taught in law schools!)
I don't mean we should just sit around and hope that society changes in this way. More that Stallman and the GNU folks may deserve a lot of credit for creating the GPL, which allowed a particular part of the community of people who believe in open standards to get together, become strong, and to one day prove to the larger world that open standards really are an important social good.
Or not. At least I hope I don't sound too much like Mr. Katz with my handwaving generalities and talk of sweeping social change.
Rich K
Another thought. Actually, I think there's something to the idea that open computing standards should become a principle taught in law schools. A law requiring open file formats or whatever would be clumsy and stupid and observed in the breach. A legal principle gets debated intelligently by law students and judges and in law journals and becomes part of legal reasoning. You could then sue somebody for having closed standards, without Congress or regulatory bureaucrats having gotten their grubby hands in the mix! I think.
If Microsoft's marketing dept. were removed they would be forced to compete on their products' own merits . Perhaps some sort of regulation discouraging unsupported and ambiguous claims of faster, easier, etc. could do the whole industry a lot of good. Of course, I wouldn't want to see huge disclaimers just tacked on for every little detail, but if at least some basis for hyped up claims about performance was required, Microsoft would have to focus on having something to hype about (which wouldn't be too easy for them :). Maybe they should also do something about their relation with some of the computer press (more than a few publications have gotten cozy with Bill to promote the platform they cover rather than reviewing MS on an objective basis).
Arguing that justice should not be dispensed because of it's effect on the stock price is silly- you're arguing that justice should _never_ be dispensed against a company, in effect declaring companies above the law.
Besides, Microsoft's stock price is due for readjustment anyways- it's P/E of 65 is like 3x higher than the stock market average. It'll be worse when it actually happens- the stock market _always_ overcorrects. Can you see MSFT selling at $15 a share? You may...
Actually, if you had held AT&T stock prior to its breakup and held it to the present you would be rolling in dough right now since you would own stock in each of the Baby Bells, AT&T/TCI/Excite@home, Lucent Technologies, and NCR. I don't know if the return on this bundle of stocks has exceeded the increase in the DOW, but I'm sure at a minimum it has at least kept pace.
Even if M$'s stock were to crash, if some current stock holders have profitted from holding stock in a monopoly, then they have had plenty of warning to get out with their profits, and holding longer is just an example of their instatiable greed to make more profits. I can't see it causes the market as whole to crumble as a M$ breakup will ultimately mean more profits for everyone but M$.
Competition, yes, but 5 microsofts all with the
source means 5x more versions of Windows.
How does this help the consumer?
Gee, nifty game x works on Company A's Windows,
but the office package I want runs on Company D's windows, and the e-mail package work mandates runs on company B's windows.... Ugh.
You can't force Microsoft to port their apps to other platforms. Heck, when it suited their purposes, they came out with a crap version of Word on the Macintosh. It was so bad, that the secretaries where I worked de-installed it and reverted to the old version. But MS had the money, and they also had pushed the Mac platform down below the level of Windows in the minds of business users. The Mac platform had to be neutralized in order for Windows to dominate the desktop. If that's not a clear conflict of interest scenario, please tell me what is!
I don't think breaking up Microsoft is an appropriate solution. Rather, their corporate charter should be revoked and their assets handed over to the Free Software Foundation. :)
This sounds like a really good idea whose time has come.
What gives us the right is because we are the consumer. Because of that we can expect quality product or service, and if we don't get it, we have the right to complain. I think breaking up would be a good idea, but give a piece to Linus, a piece to Alan Cox, a piece to Richard Stallman, Eric S Raymond, a couple of random homeless guys, some coders who have a CLUE, and, of course, Rob and Jeff :) We'll see how long it stays crappy (if it stays at all!)
If you "break it up" as someone pointed out, the power would still be in the same hands. Which is a Bad Thing.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
From what I've read, it was precisely because of the government's pressure on IBM that they choose to use someone's elses OS (Microsoft's) instead of developing their own OS inhouse. So the lesson is really that governmental oversight can be effective!
This will take away the only way they have to
illegally & unfairly compete - which is secret
protocols between an NT server and MS applications
such as Office.
They wouldn't have to document them until any
general release, of course.
Most importantly, this would set a good precedent
to future monopolists.
Mark
Since the beginning of the MS-Gov't dispute, I have argued that the most effective remedy would be to clone MS. MS1 and MS2 would each take equal rights in the MS technology, shareholders of MS would be split randomly into two equal groups, each getting either MS1 or MS2 stock, assets and employees would be evenly divided, etc. Granted this would be a logistical nightmare, but so would any other "solution". MS1 and MS2 would have a blanket proibition about any form of cooperation/agreement/merger/etc for at least 10 years.
Intellectual property is still property. Period.
Would you like the government just say... refuse to enforce the law? Which they would have been doing. Or refuse to enforce your intellectual rights on say... a novel?
And it would be a terribly socialist thing to do to release Microsoft's code, and our government tends to like capitalism so don't look for it to happen.
suddenly I feel very tired
I don't think that the oil companies ARE very competitive. That's why we all get hit at the pump every time there's a THREAT of a shortage - it's not upward pressure on the price, it's an excuse to raise prices.
All the same, as I have stated in other posts, I don't think there is a good way to break up MS that would effectively solve the problems.
Nor would a fine be good for consumers, because they'll just pass the cost on to us.
Nor would "forced opening and documentation" of the OS source code and every API (because there's no way to insure accuracy and quality).
So again, I say, Lock em up! Every last one of the nasty bastards. Even the contractors.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Completely economic and business model. MS and IBM have about as much in common as MS and Standard Oil.
The government is contributing to the problem themselves. Two points follow, the second is more important.
1.) Government agencies requiring the usage of the most common commercial software (or even hardware). It's hard to compete when your competiotion has 80% market share *and* an ensured government market.
2.) Usage in public schools. A lot of public schools wont consider anything but Microsoft/Intel solutions, and actually teach classes on the usage of Microsoft Office/Visual C++/Etc. It should be illegal for public schools to teach the useage of commercial software (Including the Windows O/S) when there are good, free alternitives avalible.
If Microsoft (or whatever other commercial software) is being taught as the only choice to a captive audience, is this a good thing?
...sorry if this is a duplicate...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Its one of the ONLY intelligent posts I've seen in this entire thread.
Completely different economic and business model. MS and IBM have about as much in common as MS and Standard Oil.
Linux could be orders of magnitude ahead of it's current state if everyone were working on a common distribution rather than wasting resources through duplication.
Linux or *BSD could be orders of magnitude behind the curerent state if everyone took the current code as The Best Way To Do It instead of wasting resources submitting patches.
Sometimes having competition and similar projects leads to very good things.
--
QDMerge 0.4 just released!
how to invest, a novice's guide
asf movies ?
That way they (and anyone else with similar aspirations) remember why they were slapped down in the first place.
This may have been said elsewhere, but with 300+ postings here, I probably missed it. I definitely don't agree with breaking them up. One Microsoft has been bad enough. Can anyone really believe that multiple 'independent' companies would play on a level field with the other competition? My half-baked solution is let them choose where they want to compete - OS or applications. Let someone smarter than I decide where the boundary between application and OS lie (so we don't have another browser type fiasco), and hold them to it. If they step over this line, they are barred from releasing said product(s) until an independent 3rd party decides on if it meets the criteria. Allow this restriction to be lifted after a period of time, say 5 to 7 years. By then the rest of the industry should be enjoying the fruits of healthy competition, and Microsoft can re-enter as just another company looking for an edge.
I agree. I do not think breaking up Microsoft is the best solution, or even a viable one.
Breaking up MSFT along product lines (i.e., an OS company, an applications company, etc.) would likely just result in a lot of little monopolies. True, it might force the OS company to be more open about their APIs, but even that could be circumvented.
Breakup MSFT up into three identical but smaller MSFTs would likely cause no end of grief while not solving the actual problems anti-trust law was created to prevent -- in this case, high prices, low quality, unfair competition.
Forcing them to port their applications to other OSes would require choosing those OSes, and likely result in poor-quality ports. No, that is not what a free market is about.
Requiring them to open up their file formats and APIs might work. It would level the playing field quite a bit, I suppose. The problem is, even MSFT doesn't understand their APIs. Read their Windows documentation sometime; it is full of errors and ommisions. MSFT might also still be able to leverage their OS monopoly effectively with PC OEMs.
I think the best bet might be to force MSFT to GPL anything and everything that comes with the Windows disc (or the OEM kit, for OEMs).
It has a certain appeal to it. It prevents them from doing anything with their OS monopoly, as any attempt at product bundling would have to be open source. It cripples a keystone of their monopoly. It also lets them keep their Office cash cow, so they can continue to "innovate" in a less critical market segment.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I believe there is precedence in both World and American History on what *could* happen if the legal remedies fail.
It's ugly, and illegal, but if the richest man in the world wiggles off the hook, he may open himself up to the more extreme options.
I don't advocate violence, but history has many examples of people taking the law into their own hands once all legal channels have failed and they truly beleive they've been cheated. USA vs. England, early 19th century machine breakers, John Brown and slavery.
Holy cow, when I think of all the freaky technical (or just plain schizo) types I've known who own and use weapons, I not sure I'd want a software monopoly.
As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
While I'm afraid the entire industry will fight this idea for all it's worth, the way software is licensed really needs to change so the consumer has rights and/or recourse. Trying to break a 900 pound gorilla into smaller monkeys is not going to solve a basic problem of consumer protection.
Presently, the consumer who purchases Win32 has no rights to use the product for anything other than one installation on one computer. The owner of the media on which the software is delivered does not have the right to sell, give or lend said media. I'm not trying to say that Windows should be free, but I don't think that Microsoft should be the sole overlord of the computing experience.
Just like the government has regulatory bodies in order to protect consumers from bad food products (FDA) and monitor the airwaves, (FCC) the software industry really needs to be watched. Just setting some ground rules for consumers would be a start If Microsoft was not allowed to impose restrictions on the OEM or end consumer who purchased their software, and ownership could be transfered, perhaps none of these monkeyshines would have been neccessary.
Think about it: Microsoft doesn't sell a product, they sell licenses to *USE* their product. Their profitablity derives not from selling something incredibly cheap to produce (like Pepsi) but from selling a product that requires YOU to add the sugar and the water (like Kool-Aid) then they tell you what you can't do with it and take credit for the hard work! As much as they hem and haw about "the difficulty and complexity of maintaining the software", once their initial investment is made back, people are just handing them money.
If Microsoft is really going to be "punished" for being the most egregious example of what IT corporate greed hath wraught, I don't think they should be singled out. The software industry, for all the money it makes and all the "opportunies" (read "temp slave work") it creates, really needs to be held to account for it's own mistakes. As much as I hate to have to involve the government, some consumer protection laws need to be put in place in order to keep corporations "honest" or at least less deceitful.
Just because you can afford a few scruffy programmers, PCs, and Microsoft Developer Net subscriptions does NOT mean you have entered the software market in any meaningful way.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Middle-high apps, maybe, but I agree with the earlier post that you have to leave something behind (ftp, notepad, etc) so it's not just Window 2000.
Simply breaking MS up will do none of us much good. The resulting "Baby Bills" will still carry over much of their current behavior, and be inclined to share information just as before. Outside companies would continue to suffer from an MS unwilling to share their work with others.
We should take a look at what our real problems with MS are, so we can focus on useful solutions.
1. Closed, guarded systems.
MS has always been tight-lipped about their software. No one can fault them for wanting to protect their work. (Open-Source advocates, please bear with me.) However, they simply go too far. Many portions of the Win32 API, and that of other products, are simply not disclosed. MS internal developers use this proprietary information for an unfair advantage in the market. They integrate their applications using resources that other developers are never even told about, much less given access to. This is one of the traits that make MS a monopoly.
2. Predatory Business Practices
I have to give MS's marketing department credit. They manage to slaughter the competition, steal technology, leverage monopolistic resources on a truly grand scale, and somehow put a nice face on all of it. To the less informed, MS could even seem like the victim, thanks to marketing's clever talent with words. The truth of the matter is that MS has been working to build this monopoly for years. Whenever a new technology appears that may have great potential for future systems, MS is quick to snap it up. Whether by acquisition, "parterships", IP lawsuits, or just plain theft, they work hard to get their hands on whatever may make them more money and strengthen their hold on the computing public.
3. Strongarming vendors
MS also now has a penchant for strongarming OEM vendors. Dell, Compaq, HP, you name it, have all felt the pressure from up on high to conform to the Windows view. Attempts to offer alternatives have been met with threats of price increases, catering to competition, and denied sales. 1n 1997, the company who built the PC's for my office informed me of some recent changes in MS's OEM agreements that he had to sign. It seems that even this very small company was forbidden to remove references to MS network, the "Online Services" folder, or Internet Explorer, among other things, without express written demand from the customer. This kind of bullying can only be bad news.
4. Irreverence / Immunity
Anybody but me notice how stupid the MS lawyers have seemed to be for this entire trial? How Bill was so evasive and problematic during his deposition? Surely He can afford better legal council than this?? Another point often missed of late, is that MS has been steadily building an overseas presence. I'm no authority, but last I heard, a significant portion of one noteworthy billionaire's assets are no longer within US borders. Does Bill really think he will win the case the way it has been going, or perhaps is he just getting prepared for the worst. You decide.
I think that covers the problems.. But we all know these. Solutions would be nice.
1. Closed systems
Perhaps a precedent needs to be set. Force MS to disclose full API information. If it is used anywhere in their products, they must release information on how to access and use it. And their OSs, Win9x at least, should be forced to have open code, perhaps even an open license. This eliminates their largest advantage, but still leaves them with rights to their applications. Keep Office, but open up the integration API & file formats. Open up windows so anyone can see the full API and make improvements.
2. Predatory business practices
This is a more difficult issue to deal with. We can't just arbitrarily decide that MS is not allowed to aquire businesses and technology anymore. Though assuming we've already done the first solution, this becomes easier. MS no longer can keep its systems so proprietary, so we're not losing as much. (the Sun/MS Java/J++ bit would be much harder to pull off) And with Windows' code opened up, and required to stay so, would pre-empt them from throwing gobs of aquired tech their favorite direction.
3. Strongarming vendors.
Software is a product. Once a car leaves the factory, is it up to the manufacturer what goodies and extras ultimately come with it? No. The vendor decides what to sell, how to sell it, and what to include with the purchase. So should it be in the software world. Perhaps a regulation could be made that Software purchased can have no legal requirement to have extraneous, unneccessary components (read: no marketing) included with the installation or distribution of said product, etc.
4. If Bill wants to move to china, I suppose there is not much we can do to stop him. But we can All laugh as he goes out the door, dragging his incompetent legal team with him.
Breaking MS up would change nothing. In days of yore, it made sense to break up another great monopoly, AT&T, only because of geographic diversity. AT&T controlled the phones and had offices and switches from one coast to the other. By breaking them up, we got better service, more reasonable fees, and better technology out of the competition. Breaking apart MS would not change the market, only give Bill & Co. a slight setback and a new orginizational challenge. We don't want that.
"Not one shred of evidence points to the notion that life is serious" -- Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain
Let all private property be cracked open?
I got dibs on your house and your car if it's not a lemon.
Hell, I'll take it anyway.
No private property's a bitch.
GPL Win32. The whole thing. Forcibly, under RICO if possible (with attendant penalties... that house would fetch a decent price at auction). Then have FTC stand ready to have Federal troops swoops down to remove from retail shelves and warehouses and destroy any MS OS product found by DOJ (with FSF advice) to have any non-GPL'd components (APIs in particular).
A win in this case proves monopolistic behavior and opens MS up for the kind of successive waves of lawsuits that can destroy an incorrigible company, so I'm not worried if the initial financial penalties aren't too severe; over time they will be, never fear.
GPLing all of Win32, though, forces them to enough of a semi-level playing-field that they'll never again have the total domination they once had. They'll be able to compete on quality, consumers will benefit from the ability of those who actually honestly need the stuff to work to be able to find and fix bugs and cruft, particularly the cruft caused by imperatives from Marketing and Billy-Gee, so that the product will actually improve over time, and MS will no longer be able to charge highway-robbery prices for the product because to do so would erase their invented-here and brandname-loyalty advantages to the point where viable competing distributions might emerge and flourish, something that would destroy them in short order.
The ENIAC story actually has a vague precedent: the obstructive holder of a critical patent was punished for onerous behavior by having their patent lifted, for the sake of progress and common weal. This solution is somewhat less Draconian, thanks (again) to Richard Stallman's greatest achievement, the GPL.
What the software industry needs right now is a new development model. What's being shown now with the success of free-software and the crapiness of corporate wealth, is that software evloves when money isn't an issue. When it is an issue, inefficiency, instability, and insecurity results. It becomes a matter of who can suck more money out of the people, who owns the most expensive two piece suit, and who's shoes cost more than someone elses house. NOT who has the most stable, or efficient, or secure piece of software.
/stopped/ looking to benifet just themselves, then hoorah! If not... do away with them
Money hinders. Take it elsewhere. It is important that software evolve for the better of the people, an not for the better of a company. What is created now becomes the basis for our future. We can't afford a crappy future because it made XandX a company richer.
Regardless of how Microsoft it dealt with, it must eventually be done away with if it doesn't get it's act in gear. If they released source code, if they supported open-development, if they
Um, in Europe at least we often impose _serious_ fines on companies using illegal ways to manipulate the market. Had Microsoft been a european company they'd probably have been fined a couple of billion dollars years ago. As is now they're just under investigation, and hopefully the US will deal with its own shady buisnesses before the rest of the world has to clean up the trash.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with Microsoft is that it can use Windows as a bargaining chip to muscle into markets (or muscle others out of them). Instead of breaking up the company or creating complex regulation with ill-defined statements about how Windows can be developed, why not simply take away the ability to use Windows as a weapon?
Simply put, force Microsoft to use standard, publicized pricing and force them to sell Windows to anyone who wants to buy it. No cutting special pricing deals. No denying Windows to a manufacturer. Microsoft can set the bulk pricing rates but they have to charge everybody the same rates for the same quantities.
This seems like it would be easy to legally describe, it would be simple to enforce, and it would take away the ability for Microsoft to use Windows as a weapon. It wouldn't stop them from adding features to Windows, but I don't think that's desirable or necessary to achieve the major goals of this lawsuit.
MICROS~1 should be broken up into seperate companies 1 to do OSes, 1 to do consumer apps, 1 to do commercial/enterprise apps, and one to do software develpoment apps.
What is the point of splitting them along those lines? Why split consumer apps apart from commercial/enterprise apps? I could possibly see why software development apps should be split off. They should be given the same access to the OS as any other 3rd party developer. But why should they necessarily be cut off from the company that does the consumer or commercial/enterprise app development?
I've never been a big fan of splitting Microsoft up. I'd rather see them forced to publish a pricelist based solely on volume and forbidden from using MDAs or any other such deal to favor certain OEMs that do as Microsoft wishes. This method probably requires a bit more thought in order to close all the loopholes, but I think it might be more effective as well. Just my opinion though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ok, well.. First, my initial thoughts: it doesn't really matter either way. Just by making this case against Microsoft, the DoJ has forced Microsoft to be a little less overt with their strong arm tactics, and allowed a few cracks in their marketing armor to be made. It's just a matter of time before Microsoft is relagated to being a bit player. A company that rich won't simply go away, however, and will remain a part of the Establishment, but no one will give a damn about them anymore. Not really. (in the future they may actually make decent products, but only their core, truly fanatical group of users will still be on the bandwagon long enough to actually care)
Another thing that comes to mind is all this alluding to Ma Bell throughout this discussion.. I'd like to remind all of you that Microsoft is not a phone company. There's a little less room for competition with phone companies (at least at the local level) because you don't exactly want to have a few dozen different sets of phone lines strewn all across your town or whatever. The software industry is full of competition, and is one of the easiest industries to break into. I think a combination of unfair business practics on the part of Microsoft, lack of marketing savvy on the part of other companies, and various other things (like total ignorance on the part of the end-user) have contributed to their monopolistic reign.
Regulation.. As I said, this isn't a phone company, ok? It's a diverse industry, not a single giant. Regulation.. would be bad.
Break them up..? Oh, who cares. It's too much trouble. And it's still not a phone company. I say fine the bastards a huge sum and spend the money on something useful .. (that's right Uncle Sam, no more gold-plated toilets in outhouses in the middle of heavily forested regions no one shall ever visit)
Everyone should just be happy there is strong competition on the horizon. The market is starting to get a lot more interesting. There's too much focus on Microsoft, anyway. It gives them more credit than they deserve. Be pro-whatever, not anti-Microsoft. Otherwise you make it seem like whatever you are for really isn't worth anything except as a tool to beat down Microsoft so that something "way kewl" will eventually come out.. Especially since comparing *BSD, or GNU/Linux, or even MacOS in many instances is like comparing a big juicy steak to a big rotting carcass with a lot of air freshener sprayed all over it. =P
At the very least.. consider the differences in different industries before comparing monopolies from.. you guessed it.. different industries.
~ Kish
When I first read of a possible MS breakup, I panicked. The first thought in my head: "National Operating System." Think about it.
If the giant from Redmond were indeed split, into say, an OS branch and an applications branch, this would be the government's way of acknowledging that Windows is in complete dominance of our computing systems. The public will see it this way as well. Private sector would of course standardize on an OS with the government's blessing.
I see a future where corporations and middle-of-the-roaders flock to the newly blessed baby MS. Linux will stay in the musty world of hackers and script kiddies, its aspirations of greatness shriveled like a baby human power-pod plucked too soon from the robotic nuturing vine.
Take the red pill, folks. Come to the real world, where market forces should be allowed to shape the future, not unnatural government intervention.
Tetris rules.
Jail time.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wow...If anyone had a hate powered vehicle, you could run it for a year with the posts I am seeing here.
Ok, Break them up, regulate them...hell, kill their children. What difference would it make? Would you start using their Software? NO. Would you all of a sudden like them? NO. Would my rent go down? NO. Would my/your/anyones life change in any meaningful way (i don't mean how much money someone would make)? NO.
Ok, sure all those Billions gates gives away to charity every year would dry up, but hey...I don't get any of it.
-paul
If MS were broken up into two chunks:
Windows Inc. -- Win9x, WinNT, WinCE, IE (at this point it is in the OS), IIS, VisualStudio dev tools, BackOffice server apps, Outlook (Exchange client).
(Note that you could even imagine a "BackOffice, Inc." that included BackOffice, Outlook, and VisualStudio.)
Office Inc. -- MS Office, all other business and consumer applications, MSN, WebTV, input devices.
Other Microsoft has been making large investments in cable and telco companies, as well has hollywood 'content providers'. In my opinion, these the spoils of monopoly and none of the new companies should be able to leverage interest here. Just as with the telco breakup, they should be required to disinvest and be prohibited from entering this market for a number of years.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Europe/Asia/etc. would love to have had Microsoft as a homegrown company arising from someone's garage
Uh... several European nations are already conducting their own investigations into Microsoft's practices. As far as Asia goes, are you familiar with the Chaebols in Korea, and their impact on the Korean working class? Or the problems with the Japaese Bureaucracy and the kieretsu?
Hail, Satan!
True...but the cost of entering the market is much, much lower with software. You simply don't need the infrastructure that you need with traditional monopoly-prone industries. It's a different ball park, that's all I'm saying.
Interestingly enough, it seems to fall out like this: Huge competition crushers like MS can survive (of course). Small software companies tend to survive as well. It's the medium sized companies that get trampled...the small ones seem to come in under the radar. Once they get big enough to notice, they're in trouble.
That sort of dynamic just doesn't appear anywhere else. More food for thought: Most small companies can't be considered to have entered the market in a meaningful way. Yet, they survive. I could quit my corporate job (as a developer) and make a fantastic amount of money as an independent developer of custom components(assuming I had the general business sense, which I doubt). That small entry into the software market would certainly be meaningful to me. Could I start a small cable company in the same way? An oil company?
It may be decided that the differences are moot. I'm just saying that the differences are there.
No, but a freemarket can only properly work with a government there to apply law and order. (to a limited point) :)
The governments job is to do 4 things.
1. Provide a legal framework for markets.
2. Encourage compitition with those markets.
3. Correct for spillovers/externalities aka (pollution)
4. and umm.. something else I forget (no wonder I didn't do to great on my macro economics class last week
Anyways the point is with 1 and 2 that it is the governments job to promote compitition, which is often done through the legal framework. Peoples rights extend to the point where they are destroying other peoples rights.
Bill Gates had the right and the ability to create an empire from a buisness out of his garage, but he doesn't have the right use his power to stop other people from doing the same thing. Accually he does.. to a point, as this is called compitition, but there is a fine line between compititing.. and having to power to litterly destroy and industry.
Am I to understand this correctly, You are advocating that MS not be broken up but only forced to release the source code for WinXX and NTX under something like the GPL? I can see the up side to this and that is that other companies could write apps for MS OS's and enter the playing field on a more or less equal terms. That is what the DOJ trial is supposed to be about correct? The only draw back I could see with doing things this way is that MS would still be first to market with the "next generation of neat stuff" so would this really help to release the overly tight grip they have on the OS / App market? The only thing I can see that would do that is breaking up the company and I don't see that as being all that good for the software market. As that would lead to (IMHO) greater software fragmentation than there is already. One of the problems that I have here at work is that we have people using things like Lotus 123, MS Excel, and others and that makes sharing data MUCH harder.
So after saying all of that in a less that totally coherent fashion I will just say that I am for the release of the OS source but I see no real way to break MS without making a real mess. Now for the big question, Just what makes up MS's OS's?
__ Fast - Cheap - Good Pick any two
I think he meant FULLY documented formats for ALL file types.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The US DOJ has absolutely no right to interfere with Microsoft's business. It does not matter one bit that MS disgusts me ethically and technically. It also does not matter that MS spends the majority of it's energy tearing down it's competition instead of building up it's products.
If the scourge of the computer world that is Microsoft is to be stopped, it must be by the free market. Without unconstitutional and unrightful interference from our misguided 20th century government, I have full faith that the computing industry will come out just fine.
Down with continual DOJ interference in free enterprise!
Hate to be the one to break the news, but trying to replace the US governemt would be called treason or an act of war (depending on where you live) in this day and age. That, however, is a tangent I won't off on right now.
The problem with making somethign illegal, is that this opens the law to very broad interpretation by the next sue-happy person that sees a way to exploit it. The real solution here, IMHO, is to just leave MS alone. Yes, I'm sure many here hate the plan, but your logic is correct, you just have the organizations reversed. If you don't like MS products, don't use them, don't frequent businesses that use them, and certainly don't work in a workplace that uses them. Yes, this might make your life hard, but if you and everyone else realy disagrees with how they run a business, they will eventually be forced to succumb to the economic roadblock. The dollar, and not the lawbook, is the real power of the people. Hiding behind the government does nothing more than give Them more power, something that we _really_ don't need.
Where do you kids (not) learn your history from????
Lack of govt interference in the marketplace lead to the great depression? And the great FDR and his socialist policies got us out of it right?
Jesus CHRIST you people are STUPID!
"An Architectural Review Board should be formed to maintain the source trees. "
This is a really dumb idea - a govt. committee that decides software architechture...
I didn't say it would be a government committee. I don't think it should be, because of your points, plus I think that really would be too much government interference. I want the government to make this happen, but not be (unnecessarily) involved in the implementation.
It would be an industry committee, like the way OpenGL is managed, or the Object Management Group (OMG) for CORBA. An Open Source project like this would need an organization to serve as a code maintainer, and I just thought some rules for its formation, such as the restrictions on Microsoft and the opportunity for anyone who produces an operating system or a web browser to be represented, should be part of the process. Someone has to approve patches, and the proposal wouldn't be complete without some suggestion as to how it would be managed. Membership in the group would be pretty much open to anyone, though there would have to be some mechanism to make sure it didn't get stuffed with people with any particular agenda; I just listed some of those who would probably be most interested in being members.
I guess the reason I scare-quoted "official" is that there wouldn't be any government mandate making this group's distribution any more valid than anyone else's, assuming someone else decided to fork off a version and set up their own source tree. This would just assure that there would be a version to step into the gap left by Microsoft's closed one. Primarily, they would be there to keep an eye on what Microsoft did with the code. Realistically, Microsoft would, for a while at least, remain the major developer and distributor, and this would just make sure it stayed open.
Anyway, I guess the ARB is not the most important part of the proposal. I just thought it would be a good idea to specify some of how the code would be maintained, and to keep Microsoft from retaining de facto control over it, but the really important part is that the code be donated to the public under the GPL. I don't see how anything less could undo the damage Microsoft has, in my opinion, done.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
We all remember MS-DOS, right? In what way was that better than UNIX?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it could run on small systems. UNIX can't.
Stupid people.
The only way to really push the point home to Mr. Gates is make him publish all the source code to everything Microsoft have ever made. All his money and monoploy power come from his hold on the code, remove this and you destroy his ability to control others.
GMAFB. Wordprocessors dack in the CPM days were highlighting spelling errors.
This is Bull. Take a lesson from nature, a single gene pool means death and stagnation. This is not what the world needs in the Information age. One size does not fit all, I like my shirts baggy.
Breaking up Microsoft is a stupid idea, it would accomplish nothing.
Charter? I must agree with the gentle sir from the colonies and lay claim that the king must revoke their charter!
:P
Oh, wait...this isn't the 18th century...don't I feel dumb
Some time ago I saw a link to MICROS~1's "freedom to innovate" page I of couse took advantage of the offer to not only remind MICROS~1 that they have never innovated anything, not once, ever and to also e-mail to all my congress critters that, in my opinion, MICROS~1 should be broken up into seperate companies 1 to do OSes, 1 to do consumer apps, 1 to do commercial/enterprise apps, and one to do software develpoment apps.
I got a nice letter back from my ChristianConservativeRepublican Senator saying he didn't beleive in gov't interference in the marketplace. Oh well, it was fun though.
Clearly MICROS~1 is abusing their dominant position in the marketplace, and breaking them up would allow for competition based on the quality of the competing products, not based on whether MICROS~1 alows the competition entry to the marketplace.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Breaking up MS would result in different comapnies doing different things with no incentive to favor their old fellow travellers over the competition. There is no comaprison to be made here, except maybe on the rapacity of the monopolists in question. Bill has done many scummy things, but he has not yet resorted to dynamite to my knowledge.
Let them stay together, their public image is completely tainted.. Free software can take them down now with no problem, the government would only screw it up more. I think that there is enough awareness in free software and Linux in general now that they pose no threat to us anymore.
moderate this up.
--
I don't like most MicroSoft's products. I also do admit that they have an extremely large market share in OSs and abused their power. I might even agree that Bill Gates is an evil genius. However, (!)none(!) of the above gives anyone a right to regulate or break up the company - they did not create it, so they should not touch it!!! After all, the US government is the largest monopoly of all! Let's break it up.
-- The word "woman" is not politically correct any longer.
The word "woman" is no longer politically correct.
You should use "Female-American" instead.
Remember audio modems? That was because the phone company didn't want any foreign hardware attached to their system. Some folk paid much cash to have the phone company come out to attach a modem which worked better. Because only the phone company was allowed to connect to the phone wires. I bet IBM did lobby for that. I know I would have. And despite everything I haven't been sorry that it happened.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The question as I see it is not if MS should be broken up, but rather how? This is not like a telephone co or an oil co where you can just break the company into several companies that do the same thing. This is a new type of Trust and if MS is broken up by product then we will just have several smaller monopolys.
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
My sentiments exactly
- Rei
Fines, great big investor castrating fines.
Illegal use of monopoly powers leads to government recovery of money and investment in public good.
Certainly if they are found to have illegaly used their monopoly and to have manipulated prices a number of consumers can use the "no alternative OS" statements to sue to recover "excess costs".
Microsoft should welcome government fines in exchange for immunity from a whole host of individual lawsuits or class action suits.
Doubting it will happen, or is even likely given the lack of any other actions to recover ill-gotten gains, but it sure would be fun to watch.
Doesn't the US have some sort of recovery of money gained through illegal means laws that have been used to seize drug dealers houses, cars, boats? Why don't these laws apply here? Is the illegal use of a monopoly not considered criminal? Who wants to bid for Gate's Mansion when it hits the government auction block?
> What gives the government the right to decide wether Microsoft should be broken up or not.
> You don't own MIcrosoft and niether does the U.S government.
You're forgetting a little thing called a BUSINESS LICENSE. A corporation is a legal entity that is given privileges by its creator, namely the government. When you go to the government and ask for permission to engage in free enterprise, the corporation MUST abide by the laws the government creates, in this case the Sherman Anti Trust Law. THAT is WHERE the government gets the right to break up Microsoft.
IANAL
Cheers
- Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
- Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.
- Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
Sounds sensible to me. Who's going to tell the DoJ?Your opinion follows the same lines of those presented by RMS in an opinion he wrote on the subject. While "killing Microsoft" may seem more immediately gratifying, making them play fair would work much better in the long run.
A guilty MS should only be required to open the file formats it uses. That's it. Linux will find its place without the help from the DOJ. Anything else the DOJ could do would only hurt other industry players later on.
Regulations just hinder free enterprise, what if the government would want to regulate Linux distributions, I don't people would be too happy. Now I'm not Pro-Microsoft, but this country was founded on free enterprise, don't let the government make the mistake of regulating Microsoft like when they broke up AT&T.
How exactly would the split work? Split into major chunks of functionality (OS, compiler, applications, hardware, misc. bits)? I guess that wouldn't be so hard, but to what effect? If MS Office only runs on MS Windows, and Office is the most popular office suite (remember that the Office suite == operating system to naive users), then what does it matter? For development purposes, if the VC++ compiler only generates MS Windows binaries, and MFC is a framework for MS Windows only, then there's no difference. Does it hurt MS financially? That's not the point of the suit, in my mind; we should foster competition, not simply punish MS.
/usr/*/bin and /opt are "add-ons" and anything in /bin is "core"? =) )
Besides, where do you split MS' applications between "core OS functionality" and "user application"? They've already tried to blur that line with IE4.0, and I wonder if naive users (and legislators) really know the difference between user-space applications and core OS applications. (Heh, what would be a non-core OS application in *nix? Anything in
Nah, it would hurt them worse to do something like force them to port Office and VC++ to other operating systems (Linux, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2...). And to open the source of the OS, so that people can truly see what the hell is going on in there!
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Certain monopolies are unavoidable or even desirable due to varying factors.. depending upon what you're talking about, of course. Do you think I'm pissed that I can only choose Southwestern Bell as my local phone company, even though I can choose any long-distance carrier I want? Well, no, because that's what is called a "natural monopoly" (you should try looking that up). It wouldn't exactly make sense for a couple dozen different phone companies to set up their own phone lines all across the fscking city, do you think? The government strictly regulates natural monopolies, and is strongly against the kind of crap MS pulls. It's not natural for there to be a monopoly in the software industry, because they is room for so many different companies, products, etc.
~ Kish
>AT&T had a monopoly that was greatly based upon
>the government giving them one as a
>public utility (allowing them to dig cables,
>erect lines, etc. with no competition allowed).
>Microsoft is not a utility like AT&T was.
I sincerely hope that you don't expect me to belive that IBM liscensing their OS from MS (Allowing them to be on every PC, no competition) had nothing to do with Microsoft's current monopoly. Microsoft achived it's monopoly the same way AT&T did; by getting there first. Furthermore, I have no qualms about punishing them for their anti-competitive bussiness practices. If you attempt to swat a fly which lands on your cheeseburger and fries, you would technically be "competing" with that fly for your food, but unlike the fly you're not in mortal danger. That is essentially the caliber of competition bettween Microsoft and say, Be Inc. I don't think this is the kind of competition which the writers of the Sherman Antitrust laws had in mind. Furthermore, it's not the kind of competition which results in good products; Microsoft no longer has any incentive to "innovate" nor to improve their product. IMHO, you're just flat wrong.
If they claim that they innovate, then force to live by their own words. No more buying companies or technologies just to bury them. They'll have to write their own code if they want to enter a market. The only problem is what to do with that huge stack of cash that they have. A $20 billion dollar fine, maybe ? Be careful what you say, someone may hold you to it !
How would you like it if the government told you that you were too successful and had acquired too much stuff so they were going to give away two of your computers and one of the bedrooms in your house
Well, I probably wouldn't... but if I had been using my "success" to go into extortion and racketeering (or perhaps my "success" was due to racketeering and extortion), then I'd probably deserve anything that they threw at me.
Interestingly enough, isn't the situation you describe pretty much what happens to convicted mobsters?
I'm NOT an Anonymous Coward although I think thats a very interesting way to get people to sign up and will keep it in mind as stuff goes on as a useful tool in manipulating people... anyhow I think Microsoft is doing a great job and should be regulated or split up... cause I think they make a nice powerhouse and I much prefer them to AOL anyway... have a nice day...
Microsoft really should be broken up. I agree with the previous poster in that they make some nice apps (InterDev comes to mind) but some of the others are worthless. Beyond that, I think a more important point is one from a business outlook and not just a consumer's -- Microsoft has already proven itself to be steadily profitable (perhaps through book balancing, but still) and the market benefit of having 3 microsofts competing would be excellent. Not only would we get better apps but they would be cheaper through competition and perhaps even *gasp* cross-platform. Well, more than they are already, though I'm not holding my breath on this one.
Breaking MS into an apps division and an OS division with a clause to on cooperate through publicly available API's i feel, is definitely the way to go.
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
To stop them comming up with, say, an enterprise e-commerce server with ActiveDooDads(TM) and then having ActiveDooDads(TM) only work properly with their own client software.
As long as they aren't getting any more access to the OS than any other company, they should be free to create all the ActiveDooDads(TM) they want. If they aren't integrated into the OS, then there's no problem. Any app company could make their own version of ActiveDooDads(TM).
The only issue I see is that the app-company-formerly-known-as-Microsoft would have a pretty decent head start on the other app companies out there. Not sure if this is a real problem or something that would sort itself out pretty quick.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
One idea that a friend had was this: Rescind all of the government supported intellectual property for their operating system products. They haven't played nice with the limited monopoly they've been granted via IP (intellectual property) law, so deny them all of its protections.
I think this sets a good precendent for a lot of companies. It forcibly drives home the fact the IP is not a natural right, but a government sponsored right, and it denies Microsoft a chief advantage.
So, in closing, I say, deny them all of their current IP rights, and on any new IP created for the next 1-2 years. That's a penalty that will hit them where it hurts, will provide a huge benefit to everyone else, and sets a good precedent in IP law.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I think a split between MS-OS and MS-Apps would be a good thing for everyone. With the ability to let the Apps people look at and change the OS gone, it would allow much more real competition. An example I heard somewhere: If MS-OS wanted to integrate a browser into the OS, they would be forced to write App agnostic hooks into the OS that any browser could use, or the feature would be much less useful and much less worthwhile. With MS making both items, it behooves the OS team to only build the MS browser into the OS. This would have to be watched so the two new companies don't collude and effectivly become 1 company again but it would be the best solution for the industry overall. It eliminates the need for hefty regulation that might stifle other companies and it gives everybody a new reason to compete and innovate.
How about you give US a break also? Anyone who has done their homework on this trial (hint: you have to read more than the M$ bashing you find on the ZDNET site) will have realized by now that the charges are without any basis in fact. ALL of the prosecution's witnesses are competitors. Their motives are automatically suspect. In the case if Netscape, there is convincing evidence that they manufactured evidence to order for the DOJ. A prior trial SPECIFICALLY allowed that IE and Windows could be integrated if any reasonable consumer benefit could be shown. This means that all M$ has to do is prove that SOME consumers are pleased, which they have done. The only other charge with any teeth is the one about M$ offering to divide the market with Netscape, and THAT turns out to have been made up by the Netscape executives. In the end the only thing the goverment managed to _prove_ is that: M$ has competitors that don't like them. (surprise surprise) and are willing to use the Govt to try to gain a competitive advantage. All of the rest is just hot air. So since this trial is clearly not about Justice, the only other reasonable explanation is that it's about envy. Or perhaps, just about business...
Regulating M$ doesn't make any long-term sense, unless the USG declares them a legal monopoly vis a vis the original AT&T. I don't think any of us want that.
Breaking the company into several different individually owned, operated, and traded companies makes the most sense. There needs to be an Operating Systems company, and Applications company, a Tools company, and an "Other" company with real firewalls between the three. That will help create a more level playing field.
-- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - R.A.H.
1. strip any copyright that has anything to do with windows 0S or internet browsing capability.
2. Strip ALL patents obtained after the company "went too far". By removing competition, Microsoft created an environment where they have 'first look' at many technologies, and the ability to create patents prior to the competition. They should be stripped of the right to profits in any way from the monopoly.
3. Hold Microsoft financially liable to the corporations that have the ability to show unfair competition. There should be no class action on this matter. Microsoft should be forced into 6000 courtrooms at the same time if thats the number of companies that have a claim. This is the key.. Make them pay for there mistakes in a way that prevents them from continuing the same trends.
Don't create 6 Microsofts that will perpetuate the philosophy.
It's interesting that the call to break-up is from Gates' own congressman. Which baby-soft would be the target of lawsuits from Corel, Caldera, Digital Research, Lotus?? This is just giving Gates and his trainee's imunity for their actions.
Sorry to be a bore, but J++ and Java are quite different beasts. If you don't believe that, then develop a non-trivial Java application (with Swing for a user intefrace) with J++ and try to run it on a Solaris machine. I wish you luck.
To give J++ credit, it is a very good IDE. Anders Heijlsberg(sp?) was one of the key designers. Now Borland are starting to look at Linux as a platform they must regret losing him to MS. Maybe we could have a collection and see if he'll come back. MS only offered him 3 million to join, after all.
Real Java programmers do it with vi and jdb.
...and the biker that punches down your door, kills you, rapes your wife, mother sister and dog, we'll all just tell the police to back the hell off!
It's a free market for your family, and you lost! You couldn't compete with a stronger foe!
Kick ass!
There's s limit to how much can be controlled by one entity, and a lot of money can be made by small-detail oriented companies serving their niche.
And then some customers prefer to deal with small companies. Not all people like to shop at Walmart, Tops and Kohls.
Being an Australian, I am not sure of what the full extent your antitrust laws will enforce but what if MS Permanently transfers its incorporation outside of US Control?
How would the Department of Justice feel if MS slipped away and relocated into somewhere like the Peoples Republic of China? Could it then stop the business practices of MS? No my guess is it would only cause irreporable damage to the US Gross Domestic Product (AKA GDP).
If this was an australian case, all we would have to do is relocate to the US and we then become an importer. As a foreign company they are then exempt from Anticompetative trading laws.
Just some food for thought
The MyTh - I am a figment of the Imagination - [Im Probably even not here]
"...everyone knows about Red Hat Linux, but not everyone is a Sun fanatic..."
-- biased comments such as that do not equal intelligent Examples
Ever heard of Star Office?
hrmmm.. free suite ? (IMHO a *very* Great Thing)
or should I go buy a $400 retail suite?
Consumers will catch on in due time.(Invisible Hand at work)
Also, Sun is going to open Solaris (whether or not you agree with Sun's *specific* open source plans for that is a separate issue.. ) additionally they very well could be planning to make a version of their Solaris OS aimed at average desktop users
(another -great thing- to happen).
And we all know what a splash Red Hat has made.
It's no secret that Red Hat Linux is getting more and more userfriendly with each new release.... (It's *Free*, *another* *very* great thing!)
What if the government simply forced them to make only their operating system open source? Well, I think you'll see them doing an about-face on saying IE is part of the OS.
But this would also prevent Microsoft from using their OS dominance to kill off competing products.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I think that the ideal situation would see microsft spit into OS and apps. The critical thing here would have to be that the OS company should be made a non-profit company (ie without share capital -- ie no one owns it) and the source code of Windows (9X or NT) be made public, but still under the control of the new non-profit company.
I can't see breaking them up as solving anything. It could actually harm the market more than help it. It would also do nothing to prevent another information age monopoly from rising down the road.
I say force them to open up the code in the areas of monopoly and keep it on the books as a solution to future software monopolies. BTW, by "open the code" I mean go as far as GPL levels of "open." Maybe extend that rule to ensure network protocols stay open.
Just a thought, but I think it may be more effective than a simple breakup.
-M
If the government *doesn't* break up Microsoft....
Well, you know the saying... The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
I thought the original plan was to divide them up into two companies, hardware and software? Though I must admit dividing the OS and other gay software divisions makes a lot more sense given the nature of the trial.
Would this breakup be beneficial to M$ in the long run or would leaving them together be better for them? Seems to me that it would be easier for the Free Software movement to take them out if their image is still tainted.
My 2
Corporations are not created by governments they're created by individuals. The Sherman Anti trust act was created by politicians to disaassemble monopolies that were allowed to exist by government regulation. Check your local history book. Some people have mistakenly taken the stance that Microsoft should be deregulated. Microsoft has never been regulated ans therefore can not be deregulated.
There's precedent for this. M$ should get at least what IBM got in the 60's for this.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
True. And despite the consent decree, IBM has done plenty of innovation. Microsoft's claims that its freedom to innovate is being crushed by the lawsuit is BS. They simply won't be allowed to prevent others from innovating and competing. They can still do plenty on their own, just as IBM has. They'll just have to begin competing rather than dictating for a change.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
With some miracle, regulation could be passed that forbids exactly what it is that Microsoft is doing. That way, MS would have to change, and no other company could take its place. I don't mean anti-trust laws; those already exist. I mean more specific to software. And if done right, it can be kept from leaking into the internet.
:P
I'm not quite sure how it would be worded or worked, but I think that it could possible be done, so that it appeases most of the people, but specifically me.
Because they ignant.
If you take a real look at the other DOJ antitrust cases, they have broken up a lot of smaller companies, especially in radio and tv.
No "harm" has come to the consumer, it's just that the laws regarding the flow of information over RTV require that no monopolies exist, so freedom of information can flourish.
It's a pretty easy equation -- the broadcaster sells off the stations, or gets their broadcasting license pulled and loses everything. Plus they get a black mark with the FCC for failing to comply with a court order.
I see no fundamental difference between this and MS, or when I had a seller's license. Either I follow the law, or the government takes away some rights. Tough luck, do the crime, do the time.
We face this every day in our regular lives, I don't see what makes MS so priveleged that they are above the law. Clearly, they've broken the law on several occasions with Borland, IBM, Stac, Novell -- the only reason they don't have a record of convictions is that they settle out of court near the end.
There's nothing new in a conviction or any penalties, there's no "chill on the industry" nor a big precedent being set here.
The goverment has a duty to investigate situations like this, try cases, weigh evidence, punish criminals, levy penalties, etc. There's nothing "wrong" or "scary" here.
If anything, a conviction and strong penalties show we have a fairly healthy, relatively corruption free judicial branch.
Interesting to see the sort of folks who whine and moan to no end when government talks about regulating the Internet turn around and support such severe regulation against the computer industry.
As for a remedy for Microsoft, a severe remedy runs the risk of tanking the market. There are a number of mutual funds who are still posting huge returns thanks largely to MS. The Wall Street backlash against anything other than a slap on the wrist to MS could be very ugly.
And very stupid since even if MS is found guilty the verdict will likely be overturned on appeal as events that are well-documented here demonstrate the idiocy of the government's case.
Breaking up Microsoft would achieve little. History tells us that this form of punishment is largely ineffectual. Standard Oil never lost its monopoly after it was broken up. The same is true for Bell AT&T. Both monopolies were broken into sub-monopolies which became more efficient as smaller companies but still worked together to squash any possible competition. The net worth of these companies also skyrocketed as a result of their increased efficiency. Monopoly breakup does not work. It does not improve competition, and it does not effectively punish the wrongdoer.
.sig file
Open Sourcing MS software would only punish the public - who would want to sort through that mess? They would continue to have a monopoly by virtue of the fact that nobody would want to go near their bug-ridden, cluster-fucked code.
Microsoft abused its monopoly power to make money. They should give the money back to the entities from whom they essentially stole it. This is the only real punishment that would cause them to suffer.
So then, why not open them up to lawsuits from their competitors? The proper solution is to allow regulation in the way of enforcing existing laws and allowing the courts to deliver punishment to Microsoft on a case-by-case basis. Allow all the little guys who have suffered material damage as a result of Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly to sue the pants off them for punitive damages.
For example, I believe Netscape would be entitled to sue them for $35 Billion, which is the loss in Netscape's worth that is directly attributable to unfair competition from Microsoft (this is probably a conservative estimate). Other companies that have suffered by these abuses are Novell, Sun, IBM, Caldera, Corel, etc. All are legitimately entitled to recompense losses from Microsoft that were attributable to abuse of its monopoly. All Jackson needs to do is say, "Microsoft is clearly a monopoly. Let the smaller courts decide if they have abused that power on a case-by-case basis, and let them decide the punishment."
After a few billion dollars in losses due to such punitive lawsuits, Microsoft will have been effectively punished without being completely elminated, and they will think twice about abusing their monopoly power in the future. And with Microsoft not being able to abuse its various monopolies, the competition would finally have a real chance.
Korhan Tekin
korhan@damgudesign.com
This is my
Any government involvement in our industry would be detrimental to all of us. The best way to combat Microsoft is by letting market forces evolve.
Do you guys remember when IBM were the Bad Guys? Microsoft didn't require government intervention and controls to eat their lunch. Market forces take over sooner or later. And the government's stupid anti-trust action against IBM was dismissed anyway.
As formidable a threat as Microsoft seems, keep in mind that government action in any way threatens our freedom to innovate and to determine the course of our industry. How would any of us like bureaucrats dictating what code to write, who you can it be sold to? Keep all the encryption restrictions in mind. Now extend that to the rest of the industry. Bad news.
Eugenehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
If Microsoft is found guilty, taking the legal chainsaw to it is the only just thing to due. Most software companies get their start by writing software, but almost all of what Microsoft has done (with a successfull product) has been to buy it from somebody else, mess it up, dumb it down, then force-feed it to the industry. We all remember MS-DOS, right? In what way was that better than UNIX? In what way was it even comparable to other OSs at the time? And, MSs products that ARE good would recieve a lot more comercial competition if MS didn't have such a stranglehold on so many vendors.
On the contrary, MS is *just* like Ma Bell. Just as you don't want 6 sets of phone lines across your town, you also don't want 6 OSs on your system, or 6 different word processor formats. MS owns the standards for executables and has used that to leverage itself into its current dominance. Breaking into the software industry is easy. Breaking into the *standards* industry requires massive market presence.
Most of other competing companys problems stem from the fact that an API would be tweaked which would break something they were working on. This way you can see clearly what it's up to.
Anyway If I write a better API then what is currently there, as long as the output is to the set standard then what does it matter what the content of the API is?
Even IF Judge Jackson comes back and finds MS has violated anti-trust laws, the sentencing from this trial is several years off from being enacted.
So while we're thinking of the best thing in the current moment, maybe we should be thinking about
what's best in a few years from now.
It's really tempting to say, "Hey, let's break up MS, like Ma Bell back in the eighties." But Microsoft is no ma bell. The biggest difference that while Ma Bell restricted access to its long distance lines, Microsoft only inhibited it.
And besides, what happens when you break up Microsoft? Three or Four baby microsofts still capable of overpowering their competitors for a long time to come.
Ok, so you think that more competition in the office arena will jump in now that MS Office is spun off into another company? Think again. This theoretical new division would still OWN MS office and still be years ahead of their closest competitor.
--R
Impossible to know for sure, but I doubt it. How could they compete? M$ has done this to heaps of other competitors going back to dos days, ie, include a free version of a competitors product, tie it to the OS.
-- Reverend Vryl
This will take away the only way they have to
illegally & unfairly compete - which is secret
protocols between an NT server and MS applications
such as Office.
The question is do MS actually write applications any more. Or do they instead hack bits of the OS (i.e. add and change DLL's in the system directories)?
They have quite deliberatly blured the distinction between OS and application.
Probably the most "illegal" thing they have done though involves their contracts with OEM's. The obvious solution would be legistlation to declare these type of anti-competative contracts null and void, with any units affected by such contracts being free of cost. (Backdate a couple of years so MS now owes money to the OEM's.) Hence the only pricing criteria MS could then apply would be how many units they supply to an OEM.
I am not a fan of much of Microsoft... but I do like some of their products.
My only Windows machine is my laptop. It's running Windows 98 SE with IE5 and Office 2000.
I do think that Microsoft should give installers a choice on whether or not to install IE5 (if you choose no, only minimal parts to IE5 will be installed.. but no internet explorer icon will be placed, etc).
The thing is, Internet Explorer is the best browser. Netscape Navigator is a poor example of a Linux app since it crashes and has more quirks than IE5 that I don't like. Not to mention the text handling.
If they are going to divide MS up... which is already divided into divisions anyway... it won't necessarily help. Regulation is the only cure in my eyes. Make sure that the OS division doesn't block features of a competing product of another division.
I've lost touch over what this anti-trust suit is all about. What are they trying to accomplish?
Their monopoly is caused more by them shelling out cash for developers and computer manufacturers to sell Windows and Windows products.
The thing is... it doesn't stop Dell or other companies from selling Linux based machines. And it doesn't stop developers from producing Windows software.
Nor will dividing the company prevent the various grants that Microsoft gives out to developers.
Where am I wrong here?
- Hugh Buchanan
- Userfriendly.com
Microsoft has a strategy of complete integration of all of its products:
Visual Basic in all apps
Explorer in all apps
Object transfer between all apps
Driver-level compatibility for all OSs
This will produce N x O x P x
Sales are dropping off (I suspect) as people DON'T upgrade because of complexity and bugs and lateness. (Business people -- check the growth of upgrade business vs new system sales to see if this is true.)
So, MS will be forced to split itself to get out of this crazy strategy.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
You simply don't need the infrastructure that you need with traditional monopoly-prone industries. It's a different ball park, that's all I'm saying.
Sure, and I can assemble lawn mowers in my garage, it doesn't mean I'm competing with John Deere in any meaningful way.
Small software companies tend to survive as well. It's the medium sized companies that get trampled...the small ones seem to come in under the radar. Once they get big enough to notice, they're in trouble.
And this sounds like a working system to you? "You can start a company and sell your product, just don't make TOO much money, or else you're history." Now who's being punished for success? :)
Most small companies can't be considered to have entered the market in a meaningful way. Yet, they survive.
Many people don't want to just survive. They want a shot at the bigtime too. By your own admission and much evidence presented in the trial, they are being denied this opportunity.
Could I start a small cable company in the same way? An oil company?
I'll agree that this is a different situation. You're competing with the distribution networks, marketing, economies of scale, etc., of the big companies (the Internet won't be as much help with physical goods like oil, and it will probably be worse dealing with cable). You're not likely to be able match those things without making a lot of arrangements ahead of time. You'll probably need a large amount of venture capital as well. It would simply depend on what the market looked like and whether the current administration was enforcing anti-trust laws at the time. This would tell the venture capitalists whether you could come in at a competitive price, as well as how dirty the other guys could play and get away with it. You do have certain advantages in other industries though. You won't find network effects occurring naturally in many of them. If I'm selling a new food product, it doesn't have to be compatible with anything. It just has to taste good and I have to be able to produce it in sufficient quantity and get it to market.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
>Does it occur to anyone on slashdot that the
>interests of Microsoft should count for
>anything? Let's say for the sake of argument
>that Microsoft has committed a crime and
>deserves to be punished. Does this mean that the
>interests of Microsoft and its employees and
>shareholders have no weight at all?
Let's say for the sake of argument that I killed your mother and deserved to be punished. Does that mean that my interests and the interests of my parents, wife, and poor unsupported children should have no weight at all?
You better believe it, buddy. When you commit a crime, you do not have any say whatsoever in what your sentence is. And that sentence must A) prevent a reocurrence of that crime and B) provide an example to others that committing the same crime is a Bad Idea. Major Micros~1 shareholders sanctioned Micros~1's actions by their continued ownership of stock and their continuing to vote the current leadership in. Micros~1 employees sanctioned the same actions by not leaving Micros~1 and continuing to write the products that violated laws. Therefore, while they are protected by Micros~1's incorporation against any other legal action, they have no right to protest when their investment tanks. You commit the crime, you do the time. You sanction the crime, you're an accessory.
Oh and please don't whine about how murder != anticompetitive actions. You're right. It's called HYPERBOLE. And the point that a criminal has no say whatsoever in his sentencing stands.
I tend to agree that opening the source won't solve the problem, though. Micros~1 has too many interrelated monopolies for opening the source to one or two to help. For my personal solution, take a look at
this
--
No matter how hard you work to make something idiotproof, someone will always come along and make a better idiot.
to anyone who felt they were forced to buy from M$FT when they didn't have a choice.
....
On second thought, I've never actually *purchased* any of the M$FT products I use
Does it occur to anyone on slashdot that the interests of Microsoft should count for anything? Let's say for the sake of argument that Microsoft has committed a crime and deserves to be punished. Does this mean that the interests of Microsoft and its employees and shareholders have no weight at all?
Forcing MS to open its OS would be a crushing blow. Windows is Microsoft's flagship product, and they have sunk billions of dollars into developing it. Regardless of what they have done wrong, simply taking things away from Microsoft willy-nilly is a very bad idea. It is every bit as destructive as would be forcing Intel to give allo of its competitors detailed specs and fab info for making PIII's.
This is not an issue of whether taking Windows away from Microsoft is good for consumers. It's an issue of what's right. The fact that Microsoft is a large corporation does not justify outright theft of their property. If Microsoft is to be punished (I don't think they should be, but that's another thread) they should be punished in a manner that is proportional to the crime committed and in a manner spelled out by law. This would possibly mean fines and/or court orders to cease the activities they have been convicted of and/or compensation to their "victims." Stealing Windows is just a knee-jerk anti-MS move and has no relationship to justice.
I really don't see how breaking up would change much. At least not in the next ten years?
You break them into Applications and Systems. This from the company who called a browser part of Systems, who called ActiveX (nee OLE) part of Systems.
Spliting Microsoft would be like modularizng spaghetti code.
They mix system and application DLL's. Every version of Word comes out will six or more DLL's that should have been distributed in an OS patch kit. Of course it can be done, but it's not pretty.
This is a boring sig
kinda offtopic, but i'm curious why some people think ie to be a better browser. my biggest complaint with it is how sometimes it doesnt let you save jpegs as jpges, it only lets you save them as untitled.bmp. does anyone know why it does this, or how it can be fixed???
What of forcing Microsoft to open source their products? That is about the best way I can think of to make Microsoft practice fair business practices. Yes, it will take them time to adjust to this new paradigm, but it seems to me that they have the resources to do it, and to do it without falling behind in the market.
The applications, development tools and OS divisions of MS have always colluded with each other. Here are two examples I have noticed over the years.
When Word 2.0 shipped, prior to the release of Win 3.1, it shipped with components that used Windows 3.1 technology, such as true-type fonts and OLE. These components only really worked with Windows 3.1.
A few years later, some Microsoft applications and development tools started to use UNC names instead of drive letters for references to files, and would connect to these files using UNC names instead. This meant that some products would not work on networks that were rivals to MS, notably Banyan and Lantastic, as these either did not support UNC naming convention for network drive connections, or supported them in a different way.
I've always thought that Microsoft are a bunch of utterly evil bastards.
My first instinct is to avoid a breakup. Instead, have a ruling against Microsoft prohibiting them from licensing or renewing the licenses of their software in any way to the U.S. Federal Government or any of the state governments.
That, of course, ends the "monopoly", since government is such a large sector of the largest economy on Earth. Entire school systems, as legally entities of state government, would have to kick Microsoft out of the classroom -- including colleges with clasess in NT administration or VC++.
However, if there is going to be a breakup, might I suggest:
At least five child companies. One with WinMillenium and Works/home apps, one with W2K and Office, one with W2K and BackOffice, one with the developer tools/environments, and one with the internet properties and WinCE.
The U.S. Government, on it's holy quest to stop monopolies, should stop and take a look at the Postal Service and Amtrak. These 'companies' are monopolies by law, not by market effects. While I'm not too happy w/Microsoft, it still seems ominous that a MonopolyMaker like the Federal Government is spreading anti-monopoly propoganda.
This is entirely ludicrous. The consumer has shown time and time again that they don't WANT a vast array of desktop choices.
When has the customer actually been offered this also it appears end users do make use of the configuration options offered to them. If they didn't want choices then everyone running Windows
would be using a default colour desktop with the default Microsoft icons on it...
And this sounds like a working system to you?
:)
I never said it was working or right. I just wanted to supply a few points to chew on. As I said, I'm neutral on the issue right now. I just think there are a few things that haven't been adaquitely(sp) addressed yet. And I sort of like playing devil's advocate.
Numerous MS breakups are possible. But each has it's own merits and flaws. Examples:
;)
1) Break up the company along "product" lines (ie., an MS OS company, a MS Games company, a MS "Office" company, and so on). The big problem here lies in the fact that all their stuff is becoming so intermingled that WHO decided just what goes to which new company? I mean literally, what it will come down to is someone sitting at a computer and seperating almost who gets what lines of code! Do we trust the DOJ to do that?...I dont -- the govt has notorious stupidity when it comes to technology in general.
2) Break the company up into a bunch of seperate but equal smaller companies, similar to the break up of Ma Bell a while back. For example, there is MS1 through MS7 (generally the # proposed). They all get 1/7th of the resources and all of the source code that MS has. Then they have to freely compete. For example, one company may choose to go a totally wacky Java based Windows route. Another may choose to dump almost everything but the Office suite, and just completely focus on that (thus trying to basically beat out all the other MS's on their versions of the Office suite, and basically establishing just one new version of Office)...and so on. The big problem here (and it applies to the above example as well) is what happens if one of the 7 MSs starts to get bigger than the others and starts eating up the others? And what if you just wind up 10 years down the road with one giant MS again? I mean, the break up of AT&T into all the baby Bells back in the 80s is basically rolling all backtogether now (BellAtlantic and NYNEX merge, MCI and Sprint might merge, Bell South ate up some other stuff and redeclared themselves as Southern Bell). What's to prevent the same?
I personally am very concerned about both these issues, esp., the possible inevitable reforming of MS in the second issue, but is this just a fact of capitalism?...that monopolies are inevitable in certain industries/circumstances? Someone with more microeconomics knowledge can probably address this better than I.
On a funny note, a famous lawyer a little while back (forgot who) said that in response to the problem associated with #2 above, we should use a "ticker-tape parade" method. This meant that everytime a company has clearly become some sort of monopoly in some industry, the government should through the CEO a ticker-tape parade all over NY, then should divide it up in to smaller companies (as proposed above in #2 and was done to the Bells), and make him start all over again. ie., yea!...he won the big prize!..ok, now back to competition...
Take care...
Christian (draco@mit.edu) Baekkelund
If Jackson determines that Microsoft's business practices are broad violations of the antitrust law, then Campbell said it would be appropriate to hold a remedies hearing to explore what should be done.
This is news? "Buerocrat advocates buerocracy." Geez. This article would have been better summed up in 2 sentances and made an "Ask Slashdot."
Campbell said that no one can know the extent of Microsoft's liability, if any, until District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issues his "findings of fact," which may come as soon as this month.
So, Jackson knows everything and will reveal it all when he comes out of his inner sanctum to spread enlightenment to the nation? Everyone knows what Microsoft has done and continues to do. "If any" indeed.
As to what to do, I don;t think breaking up Microsoft will really acomplish anything. Sure, they can't be quite the bullies they were before, but they'd stil have a monopoly on operating systems for quite a while (how long depends on how cynical you are).
The only thing I can think of at the moment is to make them release the source code to Windows, but that's not really very good because (a) who wants to deal with that mess? (b) they'd muscle out anyone who tried, and (c) embrace and extend.
So, I don't really see a solution short of outlawing Windows (and that's not going to happen).
The FTC had evidence about Microsoft and sat on it for 3 1/2 years, never being able to decide if they should do anything to Microsoft. In June of 1993, Anne Bingaman ( appointed by Janet Reno) had her confirmation hearing to take over the anti-trust division of the DOJ. Approximately one month later the Anne Bingamin's new anti-trust division pf the DOJ took the case away from the FTC and started taking action. The case is close to an end - BUT - so is the current admistration!
"It's really the antitrust laws that are the bedrock of our economic system" Anne Bingaman said during her nomination hearing, "They give us the robust competition that encourages innovation, that makes us uniquely American, that makes us really what we are"
A new admistration could replace Janet Reno and Anne Bingaman and go back to the way they were before, and decide it's better to keep government out of the way of big business. If this happens we could see a "deal" where Microsoft gets away free and is allowed to continue where they left off. Politics plays an important role in these matters, depending on the outcome of the election, (and it is looking good for Microsoft so far with their candidate having all the money), sadly - we could just run out of time... and Microsoft wins via the political process
I dislike M$ software and their business tactics just as much as the next geek, but the thought of the U.S. Gov't regulating the most used OS in the world scares the dog poop out of me. What's extremely ironic is that it's a Republican Congressman (usually minimal gov't interference in business) and geeks that WANT the gov't to regulate and trample this business. I have a feeling the opinions of regulation would be far different if it was any other OS the Gov't decided to regulate because of what they considered "unfair business practices". Call me paranoid.......
Y2K can't be the end.....it's too obvious.
The problem is that Microsoft has almost a "monopoly" over operating systems, right?
It's simple. Force all the windows code to be dumped into the public domain. Let them keep their applications and the like, but force all of IE/windows 9x/NT OS stuff to be open.
I think the answer to this problem is deregulation, not regulation.
The "robber barons" are a myth. If you study the history, you'll find that these are either exaggerations and historical error or are the result of government interference.
Standard Oil is an example of a misreading of the history. They never did attain a complete monopoly. And the market share they did gain came from relentlessly improving their product and lowering their prices. They were simply more efficient than their competition, and so some companies couldn't keep up.
In fact, Standard Oil attempted to drive its remaining competitors out of business using Microsoft-like tactics. They attempted to drive the competition out of business by underselling them. But economics will tell you that this cannot work. The larger company is forced to expand production to keep up with the demand created by the lower price, and the smaller company can simply wait for the bigger company to give up.
A case of government interference is in the Western railroad industry. Advocates of antitrust like to tell stories about railroads having absolute power over farmers, and charging fares that made it impossible for farmers to make a profit. What is never mentioned was that these railroads were heavily subsidized by the government through massive land grants. Since the government gave land grants to only one railroad in a given area, it is not suprising that that railroad was the only one that served that area, as other railroad could not compete. Once the population grew to the point where more than one railroad could survive, the exploitation stopped, as farmers had a choice.
had the government not given the railroads land, the settlers would not have been fooled into going out in the middle of the wilderness where they would be utterly dependent on a single railroad. Under a free market, a railroad would not be built until the full costs of that line could be recouped in fares. And once the railroad has shelled out the money for such a line, they can't afford to risk those profits by pissing off their customers, since a competing railroad could cut into their profits.
As for the depression, this was largely caused by the incompetence of the Fed and by Roosevelt's reckless fiscal policies. As the boom of the 1920's peaked, the Fed should have held the money supply constant or even reduced it to contain the boom. Instead, they continued expanding the money supply, feeding a speculative bubble. Then, when the market crashed, the Fed should have loosened monetary policy to soften the crash. Instead, they allowed the money supply to shrink. The result was that the crash was more severe, as was the resulting Depression.
The along came FDR. His brilliant idea was that if the government does massive government spending, this would bring the economy out of its slump. It didn't work. By 1938, the economy was in another recession almost as bad as it was in 1933 when Roosevelt took office. And the government had a much larger debt burden than it had had when FDR took office. Getting out of the Depression had nothing to do with the New Deal. In fact, in 1938, Roosevelt fully expected the Depression to continue and for a Republican to win in 1940.
So the idea that we need the government to fix flaws in the market is false. The best economic system yet discovered is full, unrestricted Capitalism.
If Microsoft is deemed to be a monopoly it would only make sense to treat Windows source code as Open Source.
here. Aren't you supposed to be getting ready to shoot up the schoolyard tomorrow?
It isn't about the OS and the applications anymore... they won that battle. Maybe it is about the clients and the server.
However, the real equity they have is in the name. That is what retains the monopoly. You would need to break them into such tiny, obscure chunks to make it an equitable solution.
My theory, though, is however you break them up, they can re-package themselves to stay strong. They aren't stupid! I think the MSN things that they are trying to pull off tell the real story of where they want to go tomorrow! Look out, Sun!
but... time will tell.
Didn't MS announce to use XML as the format of choice for at least Word? What about it? I don't have Office 2000... It would be great for everybody and seems very much unlike their usual policy of hiding the formats / internals (as recommended in the Halloween papers).
Hemos asked: "Is that the only solution? The alternative is regulation...."
So the simple answer is "if there is an alternative, by definition there is more than one solution." The longer answer is: "What's wrong with (the right) legislation?"
For instance, why not just enforce false advertising laws? If a product is claimed to have feature A but turns out not to, that's a lawsuit. If a product is claimed to have feature A in "the next release" but turns out not to, that's a lawsuit.
Another example: Contracts that too heavily favor one party are illegal. So when company C makes a deal with company D that favors C's products at the expense of D's, that's a lawsuit.
Most of the evilness of Microsoft is a result of the non-enforcement of existing laws.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
As a little aside, Scott McNealy (Sun CEO) said that he didn't think MS should be broken up - he said it could be like those horror movies where you cut the monster into bits each of which turn into a new monster ^-^. Also, he said that breaking up should only really apply when a company has a total monopoly - there is still competition remaining. Last I heard, Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO) was in favour of breaking MS up...
One problem facing the DoJ is that most of their real options involves something that would cause MS's stock price to collapse. Since the US's stock prices have built up to a massive bubble, this could trigger the bubble to burst. However, that bubble is going to burst sooner or later, and the sooner the better really, though it'd be better if it was gentler...
And finally, I can't remember the words exactly, but in the DoJ's proposed Findings of Fact, they said (with regards to MS's attack on Netscape) "First they said they did not shoot the victim, then that everybody shot the victim, then that the victim wasn't harmed" ^-^
Breaking them up is good, as it would HOPEFULLY prevent them from creating "hidden" apis for their apps to work better and break competitors apps. It would increase competition and thus quality of MS products.
;-)
However, breaking them up isn't enough. You ALSO have to alleviate them of some of their illegally gained cash, and you have to open up existing Windows and WindowsNT source code, to level the playing field.
Oh... yeah. And retire Bill Gates and take away his cash - maybe leave him with US$10 Mio for "nice try".
They are bastads break them up. Of course if you buy microsoft stock now, you will have 5+ companies which are indepantly successful, it will send the stock through the roof. bust 'em make bill gates richer
the benefit of breaking up, since I'm not versed in antitrust law?
Let's say MS is broken up into an OS company and an apps company. What prevents the OS co. from saying, "hey, we just formed a strategic alliance with MSApps Co, so we're going to bundle IE with windows and optimize windows for running office apps, just like we did before"?
Everyone is agruing here about breakup or not, regulate or not, and force open source or not. Basically, breakup will do very little - baby MS's will still make products that only run on Windows and eventually the separation will be lost again. Regulation could spell doom for the entire software industry - we constantly complain about crypto regulations, what if there were other regulations on what software could or could not do... This leaves forcing Open Source. I think this is probably the best idea for everyone involved. MS gets free help with their software; users get better software; and we finally get to see why Windows is the way it is and possibly even port Office and other useful apps to *NIX. The problem is that the government is not so aware of the virutes of Open Source. Everyone - write you congressman, email the DOJ and let them know of this option - for the good of everyone!
A first post thats not a "first post"
you will have more than one MSFT. Look at AT&T today and all the bady Bell, then, you will know what I mean. But as a share holders, I am sure I like to see that.
didn't Hilary Clinton recently get stung in NY for shamelessly trying to buy some ethnic minority vote?
now this guy is in Silicon Valley, a pretty wired up place - is the population of tech people here high enough to count as an 'ethnic' minority? (note quotes). Isn't he shamelessly trying to get the backing of a large swathe of the population (the richest segment).
strikes me as though he could care less about Microsoft, politics and votes from the geek sector seem more important to him.
Aide: Use the anti-microsoft sentiment
Senator: Who are Microsoft?
Aide: 27% of your votors hate them, the rest are indifferent.
Senator: Those bastards! This is unamerican and anti competitive, lets break them up!
Aide: Yessir, the gravy train will come in for you sir.
stty erase ^H
If they do break up M$ as a result of this, is that no a form of regulation? If someone does do it again, and they are broken up were they not regulated? I don't like anything about MS except that it makes UNIX look better, but should they be broken so that others can be broken. Where would the line be drawn?
What happened to good ol' capitalism, where you could control your assets without busybody regulators butting in? So you don't like Microsoft -- use Linux, or MacOS, or BeOS, but don't get all sissy and whine about Microsoft. I don't like Bill Gates because his company makes crappy software (nice hardware, though), and has succeeded in convincing consumers that this is an acceptable level of quality; I have no quarrel with his business practices -- if you don't want to pay extra for OEM Windows, support the increasing number of Linux-centric vendors like Penguin Systems and VA research, or demand a refund.
I'm not playing devil's advocate nor troll -- check out my website.
*** Proven iconoclast, aspiring bohemian. ***
The objective is not to hurt for the sake of it, but to set a standard where by no one can control the desktop.
Will breaking them up help? If so in what way? What's to stop them working a system where by thier office suite gets all the low down before everyone else on the how the OS is going?
Personally I think they should at least make the source code for Windows OS freely availble to whoever wants it, along with all undocumented functions. I can't see this happening though.
Windows is the monopoly commodity, true - but do not extend open-sourcing Windows to their other software products. After all, Microsoft still has to make money.
The US should take possession of the whole works, liquidate it, pay off the share holders and GPL all of the source code they can find in the company. Oh, nuts. A pig just flew into the window and broke its neck.
What's worse: MS being a bully and forcing everyone to upgrade, some new guy becoming bully and forcing people to upgrade, or no one being bully and no one upgrading?
Scenario 1: MS really is a 1200 lb. gorilla.
Possibility 1: They get broken into two 600 lb gorillas. Nice move.
Possibility 2: Stockholders delay the breakup for so long, the breakup is moot. Class-action lawsuits, anyone?
Possibility 3: MS is broken into applications and OS development. The cost of OSes goes up (to support all the programmers on 50-million lines of code), and likely goes bankrupt (because other OSes are relatively so much cheaper). Applications maintains their monopoly, and gets bigger. See sceanrio 2, possibility 2 for more info.
Scenario 2: MS isn't the gorilla we all think they are.
Possibility 1: They get broken up and fizzle without each other. Both go bankrupt and stockholders call a class-action suit.
Possibility 2: They get broken up and because a dominant easy-to-use-OS no longer exists, the home user market goes stagnant. Home users sit on their Windows 98 machines.
Scenario 3: MS appeals the court's decision. Somewhere around 2003 or 2005, a decision is made, but who cares?
Scenario 4: MS is free to go, no hard feelings.
Possibility 1: MS actually gets a little nicer, realizing another suit can be brought against them. Hey, it's already happened a little bit.
Possibility 2: MS gets nasty, and all the PC companies start supporting other OSes. Wait, this is happening now, too.
Possibility 3: MS continues to lose some people to other OSes, but maintains its market-leader advantage.
Winners tell stories while losers yell deal.
The DOJ never tells Bill G what the end result of his guilt is supposed to be.
Then, at some point well after the case has ended, his head disappears suddenly -- splut! -- in a wet pink cloud. Nine hundred meters away, the ex-SEAL sniper ejects the spent .50 cal brass from his Barrett M-82A1, removes the custom-made supressor, breaks down the weapon, loads it back into the back of his stolen van, and drives away whistling.
Sorry. I forgot my Prozac this morning, and a long-gone laid-off programmer left me toxic waste to clean up for a system reference manual.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
At the turn of the century, Standard Oil had a monopoly on oil refinement. The U.S. government filed an antitrust law (under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890) and broke the company up. When they informed its CEO, John D. Rockefeller, of their decision, he merely laughed and said that the seven companies they broke Standard into would continue to dominate the market.
Think he was wrong? Remember the last time you bought gas? Whose pump did you use?
Standard never went away... they just renamed it. To Exxon, Phillips, Chevron, Amoco, Citgo...
Microsoft will never go away if the government takes action. Only real, honest-to-goodness competition can bring down the giant.
---
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth fro
This case has always been far more than just an anti-trust lawsuit. It's a symptom of the fact that laws and regulations designed for early twentieth century manufacturing industry are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Breaking up companies could work in the old economic system since it created rivals that would be forced to compete directly. Products were comparatively simple - you could pretty much guarantee to sell more by making things better or cheaper. Hence competition drives down prices, increases quality and everybody wins.
But that doesn't work in today's world. Value is created by networks, communications and relationships. Price and quality are far less important than convenience and compatibility. Microsoft hold on to their market power by the network externality effect - they simply make it extremely inconvenient to use anyone else's product. Consequently, most of the sheep simply stick with Microsoft and there's never sufficient incentive for other firms to create competing software. Microsoft rakes in the big cash, while other firms scrabble around for niches. Free Market? I think not.
Whether or not to break up Microsoft is a side issue. What's needed is a rethink of how competition law should be structured. A few ideas:
Stop the pedantic arguments about what constitutes a monopoly. It's the size of barriers to competition that allow abuses, not market share.
Make it an offence to introduce incompatabilities that prevent the use of competing products.
Make it compulsory to announce, document and support APIs and file formats for use by other developers.
Make companies that bundle products *prove* that they are adding value rather than just stamping on competition.
Oh yeah, dump those stupid software patents...
As a final thought, just think of what would happen if Microsoft actually won. They'd then have carte blanche to launch into all the anti-competitive practices they'd love to use but haven't been able to so far because of the lawsuit. Penalties for hardware manufacturers who make drivers for other operating systems. Terminator software that self-destructs after six months after flashing up a pleasant invitation to upgrade. Three hundred gigabytes of patented "features". Word for Windows Markup Language.
Is that where you want to be tomorrow? Even if you don't like the DOJ, you have to give them credit for keeping MS on their toes.
Absolutely, M$ should be broken up. AND the government should set up regulations. The fact that Micro$oft was created demonstrates that it could happen again, and with no regulation it will happen again.
Then, of course, there are the comments I've seen here...way too much typical libertarian bs. If it were could, it'd be endless loops, or crashing more often than M$ products.
M$ *is* a "free market" solution. Are y'all advocating *more* of the same?
Also, since y'all have tossed everything that our parents and grandparents fought for out the window, and shot the 8 hour day, and the 40 hour week for all the rest of us, and helped mgmt decide that a) we don't have a life, and b) 100% of our time is owned by them, gov't regulation is the *only* leverage we have left.
mark
How about if we get MS to release and support current/future versions of office for linux and other operating systems? They could still sell it as commercial software at the same cost as the windows version. A HUGE step for linux getting it on the office desktop. Look at WinNT. All it needed was office and good network stability to become a standard in the business environment. It would be a lot easier then breaking the company up. The only problem I see is, who would port and develop it? -Marc
I remain neutral on this issue right now...but I would like to point out some points to consider.
The software industry is very much different from any other industry that has ever existed. One of the major differences is cost of entry, and a related diffence is required capital.
The software industry is very inexpensive to enter, comparatively speaking. Once you are in the "software business", relatively little capital is required to keep the business going. Every other monopoly I've ever seen has been precisely the opposite! Oil, telecom, even IBM(as a "potental monopoly" at one point)! These industries are phenomenally expensive. Especially telecom. This is why telecom industries like to consolidate, and you see no small telecom companies(except a few artifically created ones, i.e. local government subsidized phone co's or LD resellers, who are still paying the big companies!).
Look at Linux...it never would have worked if the required capital was anywhere near that of the traditional monopoly.
What I'm trying to say is this: If Microsoft is to be considered a monopoly, that would be a significant departure from the traditional monopolies. There are many differences. They all need to be addressed before jumping to conclusions.
Anyone who has done their homework on this trial (hint: you have to read more than the M$ bashing you find on the ZDNET site) will have realized by now that the charges are without any basis in fact.
I've read just about everything I can find about the trial, including Microsoft's own articles.
ALL of the prosecution's witnesses are competitors. Their motives are automatically suspect.
Big deal. All of Microsoft's witnesses are employees (or partners) with equally suspect motives.
In the case if Netscape, there is convincing evidence that they manufactured evidence to order for the DOJ.
Perhaps you'd like to give a reference to this convincing evidence? I've not seen it.
A prior trial SPECIFICALLY allowed that IE and Windows could be integrated if any reasonable consumer benefit could be shown.
That trial was a farce. They took nothing else into account when the law states that intent is an important factor in determining such things. The DOJ has used Microsoft's own internal email to show their intent had very little if anything to do with consumers and everything to do with killing Netscape. It's all there in black and white.
The only other charge with any teeth is the one about M$ offering to divide the market with Netscape, and THAT turns out to have been made up by the Netscape executives.
I've read Microsoft's take on this. I don't buy it. I believe the evidence is definitely in Netscape's favor on this one. Andreeson's notes from the meeting were distributed much too quickly after the meeting for any tampering to have been done.
In the end the only thing the goverment managed to _prove_ is that: M$ has competitors that don't like them.
Sure they don't like them. MS breaks the law in order to kill competitors. They're using the government to get justice. We have anti-trust laws for a reason. Microsoft has to play by the rules or face the consequences.
So since this trial is clearly not about Justice, the only other reasonable explanation is that it's about envy. Or perhaps, just about business...
Just another person willing to stick his head in the sand and give Microsoft the benefit of what extremely little doubt remains. After listening to Microsoft's witnesses try to convince everyone that black is white and everything that was said in the emails really means the opposite, I have no doubt that they are guilty as hell.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The US government is a big part of the problem. If the government really wants to fix the problem, they should require that any software purchased by our government must have publicly available file and protocol specifications. Also, any computer hardware purchased should have publicly available interface specifications.
I think that RMS had a better idea on what to do with a guilty MS. Force the opening of MS sources and compliance with published standards. I think that this in the long run this will be better for society then a bunch of Picosofts running around with virtual monopolies in their fields.
Grey (Chris Lusena)
Gee, let's break them all up! It sure worked wonders for the phone companies!
[slap]
Look here, fellow mutants, in order to break up Ma Bell, they had to regulate them so tightly (to keep them apart) that it was impossible for any other NEW companies to emerge. It's hard enough starting a new company; and impossible in an industry that requires 5 times the startup to meet all of the red tape requirements.
Do you REALLY want to give the software industry that kind of an enema? I'd hope not. Besides, without Microsoft I would never again relish the opportunity to laugh at all of my friends / relatives / coworkers when their machines froze.
- mitchy
"The mind is a terrible thing to, um, uh, oh bollocks." -- Me
After all it would ecncourage the competition that everyone says is already happening. After file file/protocols are freely available how could anyone establish a monopoly except through ACTUALLY giving the customer an excellent product at a fair price. There'd be no way to lock customers in once interoperability was guaranteed by law.
See, what Microsoft does is, they go to these vendors, and they say: "We'll sell you copies of our Win9x operating system cheap. There's only one catch. You have to install a copy onto every machine you make."
So, the vendor takes the deal, the user gets Win9x wether they want it or not, and we wind up with Windows Refund Days...remember that? ;)
Ultimately, cutting out this deal would drive up prices for PC's in the short run. But (hopefully), as Linux and other alternative OS'es come into the fore, Microsoft will be forced to reduce the price of their pre-loaded OS to compete.
$.02 deposited
Window NT has turned into an unmanageable mess. WinCE is getting its head handed to it by the PalmPilot. MSN has reinvented itself how many times? Win9x crashes if you lean on it. And don't even get me started about Microsoft Word! Breaking up Microsoft might give the "Baby Bills" a focus that they sorely lack.
A couple of the MS spawned companies might wind up with a combined value that dwarfs the current Microsoft.
Does this
Prove to me that breaking MS up will have any *real* effect -- what is to stop OS team A from meeting with App development team B to discuss tying an app to the OS ? The current head honchos at M$ will have their fingers in all pieces of the pie, no matter how it gets split up, and thus have an interest in business as usual.
Marco...that was Portugese.
Here's an interesting link to Cato on the MS antitrust case.
If you broke Microsoft into OS and Apps, you'd have two monopolies instead of one:
I liken it to the idea of breaking up a spore of anthrax. Want more Microsoft? Break it up. So what happens if we don't break it up? We'll get more Microsoft.
Best bet is to investigate the people behind the anticompetitive deal making, not the company itself. Then the truly guilty parties might stand a better chance of being punished accordingly to the actual damages they caused. I doubt you will see this method promoted, because its not what they want you to hear.
A breakup of the company means less attention away from those responsible, not to mention the promotions of many to oversee the new companies. A breakup just rewards those involved.
Break 'em or not, require documentation on all API's and file formats on all products. Any product discovered to have "undocumented features" should be required to be completely (not just the suspect portions) open-sourced to prove they're not hiding anything.
I don't mind any company keeping their source closed, as long as they play fair. This would let them keep their code IF they stay honest. If they don't, they lose it all. I think even MS management can understand what that means.
Windows is the dominating OS because Office is the dominating office suite. Split apart Windows and Office, and Office will port to rival OS'es, and Windows will have to improve so it is still the best platform on which to run Office.
The consumers therefore get more choices as to what OS to run Office on, and those choices will continue to get better as the OS'es compete for the attention of Office.
Microsoft wouldn't really be broken up if the same directors sit on all the boards of the new companies, or if stockholders held shares in more than one of the companies. Stockholders, especially Bill Gates will still run those companies, and, I think, could reasonably be expected to continue on the same path that the current monolithic company is going along now in a coordinated fashion. Any breakup must require that stockholders in one part not hold stock in any other part for a minimum number of years. Otherwise, breaking it up is pointless.
I know this is probably not a popular thing to say, but I assure you it is not intended as flame bait. I supported MS during the lawsuit. Not because I like their products, I steer clear wherever I can, but on a purely moralistic and freedom based argument.
Here's a few reasons why any freedom minded person should have supported MS.
2) Force M$ to release complete source to all their older products. Then at least SOMEONE could support them, 'cause Redmond sure doesn't.
3) Declare a moratorium on ANY government spending for M$ products until they learn how to play nice. Remember, just like the tobacco industry, the U.S. government is currently spending millions to fight M$ in court, while simultaneously spending billions to license M$ products!!! I find this highly illogical
Disclaimer: Anonymous 'cause I don't want the Redmond Goon Squads to retaliate!
The less government involvement the better. If MSFT is found to have demonstrated anti-competitive behavior then fine them and move on. The government has no right to come in and break them up like they did with AT&T. This is not a government mandated/regulated monopoly. Besides, with technology moving at the pace it is, MSFT will be relatively insignificant in 10yrs anyways (or, at least not where they are today). Do you suppose the Clinton-controlled DOJ is trying to intimidate MSFT into making more campaign contributions??? I wouldn't but it past Bill, would you!?!?
I just have to laugh. Europe/Asia/etc. would love to have had Microsoft as a homegrown company arising from someone's garage (though few are willing to reform their rigid economic/political arenas to allow for such garage-style company creation). Then there is the U.S: Sure, have at it. Start a company and grow, grow, grow. Whoops! You were too damned successful, now take that! Microsoft is NOT like AT&T. AT&T had a monopoly that was greatly based upon the government giving them one as a public utility (allowing them to dig cables, erect lines, etc. with no competition allowed). Microsoft is not a utility like AT&T was. It has had and does have competitors. Microsoft just beat theirs into the ground. And now we want to punish them. I don't like them, but I don't begrudge them their success.
------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
The difference between refusing to enforce rights and taking property at gunpoint is a big as the difference between removing somebody from life support and shooting them.
MS is a HUGE software house...
It's got spescialised divisions on evrything, so if you split microsoft up using these divisons as a model, we would get a greate number of good software produsers! (or maybe just a large number of really bad software...)
I'm still afraid of the impact this would have on the buisniss world...I donæt really know much about it, but with a enormous marcet like MS's, it must make a really big shockwave....right?
Let me assume that the government chooses to break up M$ (I am not sure this is the best idea, but we'll just leave that out for now). I won't even try to assume what divisions that it would be broken up into.
Why not enforce the standard code licensing that most companies use, force M$ to open its code to everyone on equal ground. If they want to be able to give people access to the WinNT codebase, then they have to make it a publicly available option (i.e. no special prices to other M$ companies/divisions). So if Netscape/RedHat wanted to take a look into the Windows code they would pay the same licensing fee that everyone else does (including other M$ divisions/corporations). It wouldn't be open source, but it would level the playing field, there would be no more favoritism for M$ apps running in Windows.
Of course the hard part of this plan would be making sure that M$ doesn't do anything underhanded (like that's never happened before...)
The "Top 10" Reasons to procrastinate:
10.
Why not? Let them still charge for Windows and let them maintain it as a monopoly, I don't mind. The difference is that they'd be subject to public regulation and rules similar to the phone company. See how they like the pressure of having to be required to make their sh*t work. I'm sure someone will say, "Yeah, but public utilities don't innovate unless they have to." How much is Microsoft innovating now?
I say if Microsoft wants to be a monopoly, so be it. Make them an official monopoly and let them have at it. Let's see how much they really like it.
And yeah, you can still use Linux, just like you can still use a diesel generator in your home.
What we really need, is to open the door for a U.S. Government vs. every Tech company Spanish Inquisition. I would suggest that no good will come of opening the door for government regulation of the technology industry.
Sure a case can be made when extremely powerful companies like Microsoft hold 95% of a market, use bloadthroat business practices, and have an image for inferior products, and no innovation.
But the market corrects itself. And it does so much more effeciently than the Government. What is more dangerous, is to set a precedent for Government involvement in the Technology industry.
Could you imaging how many Tech companies would exist tomorrow if the they were faced with all the hurdles Drug, Car, Utility, Phone, and Airline companies face when getting their products to market?
Life is like an egg better scrambled than fried. -- Ken Sawatari
Is a fair solution possible?
Yes.
And for those of you picturing the 8th air force overflying redmond washington with high explosives and bags of salt, keep a lid on it.
Simply remove the tools of their monopoly:
1) Enforce consumer choice. The #1 tool of monopoly that Microsoft uses is removing consumer choice through anticompetitive agreements. ALL consumer computer outlets should sell pre-configured versions of a certain number of operating systems. The choice of WHICH operating systems is up to the vendor, but let's say 10. Imagine if, when buying a computer, the consumer got this list:
a) Windows NT Server $1449
b) Redhat Linux with Apache: $90
c) Debian Linux with Apache: $0
d) OS/2 Warp $350
...etc.
2) Remove all private interfaces between the operating system development group and all other software development groups at Microsoft. In short, if the "Word Team" gets access to the Win2K API's, then the rest of the world gets equal access. If the rest of the world gets no access to the Win2K API, then any access to the Win2K API by the "Office Team" would result in a fine of $1 billion per day.
It doesn't cripple the company. It forces them to produce competitive, interoperable products on a platform that anyone can develop for in a competitive manner.
Think about all the programming talent Microsoft has working hard to create evil. Think of what would happen if we could harness all that wealth and talent to create good products.
You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I suggest breaking up Bill Gates instead. The various pieces could serve the following roles:
Head: PR and marketing
Legs: distribution
Arms: licensing
Arse: research and development
(That, and I'd like to see file format and API specs published.)
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
Even if you break up Microsoft, you still have to impose a conduct remedy, with corresponding oversight. Say you break up Microsoft into an operating systems and an applications division, but have no restrictions on conduct. One division could just acquire the other.
If you put the simple requirement that they can't do that, either division could still grab anything else. If you limit one division to "only operating system products" and the other to "only applications and development products", then you are getting into the hard to define and enforce conduct remedies that Rep. Campbell claims to be trying to avoid. You also get into very tricky things, like how to define "operating system".
I don't have an easy answer. In fact, I don't thing there is an easy answer.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
There's no need to open up MS's source (who'd want to see it, anyway ?). Just require that any product released for public use (free or paid-for) have all it's interfaces (APIs, network protocols, file formats) fully documented, so anyone can write an application that interacts with them. And don't apply this law only to MS : require it of ANY company. Any solution intended to restrict the activities of one company should be applied fairly, across the board. -artg
Breaking up MS into Baby Bills is fine and dandy either horizontally (several companies, each with license to the OS code) or vertically (systems, applications), but someone is going to have to own and operate these companies.
Who has the cash to buy in and who do you trust to do it?
Sun? IBM? AOL?
(Red Hat is a wrong answer. The company didn't benefit from the runup in stock price, the investors did.)
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Breaking Microsoft up is not the answer. Competition is the answer. Until we have competition in the marketplace, nothing else is going to help.
There was a very well balanced article written by Richard Stallman on this over at linuxtoday.com.
I do think, however, that there needs to be a stronger financial penalty to Microsoft IF Microsoft publishes incorrect documentation.
This documentation would allow the development of competing products. Including furthering the development of WINE. Which would, in turn, lead to the necessary marketplace competition.
I think with the help of Linux, and the accidental help of Win2k, they will be a much smaller company in the future. They cannot last forever as the largest software company in the world, and I believe they are on their way out.
Finkployd
An idea I heard about a while back was to prevent MS from buying anything to produce their software except labor, and hardware. They wouldn't be allowed to buy other companies (or divisions of other companies), nor could they make "deals". They also wouldn't be allowed to "distribute" software written by others. Essentially they would be forced to innovate, rather than buying the innovations of others.
MS is pretty sneaky, so care would have to be taken to make sure they don't find a loophole. The best way to do this is probably to say MS may not spend any money except on the things in a carefuly chosen list (which would include employee salaries, hardware, etc.).
MS could then no longer buy out all of the competition, nor could they act as simple distributors for other companies products. They'd actually have to create things on their own. It would be hard for MS to make this look like "punishment" from a PR point of view. After all, they say they want "the freedom to innovate", and this wouldn't prevent them from innovating. If MS really was as innovative as they claim, such a sentence wouldn't hurt them significantly. I'm willing to bet it'll damage them quite seriously however.
What gives any of you screaming for the break up of Microsoft or the government the right to decide wether Microsoft should be broken up or not. You don't own MIcrosoft and niether does the U.S government. If either "The People" or the Government owned Microsoft thenwe would be living in a marxist economy. If you don't like Microsoft then don't buy there products, I don't. The market will decide who rises and who falls. How would you like it if the government told you that you were too successful and had acquired too much stuff so they were going to give away two of your computers and one of the bedrooms in your house. If Microsoft is too big then they will suffer the fate of Ozymandias.
The options of intrusive government regs or breaking up microsoft aren't appealing. Instead--let them lose the help of government regulation. Take away their intellectual property rights in their operating system software.
If you look at what happened to the baby bells--the breakup of AT&T actually made a fortune for (almost) everyone involved, especially shareholders. And now, almost 15 years later, the baby bells are merging again into a new local monopoly, and at the same time the long distance companies are mergings (a few years ago Sprint+MCI/Worldcom would have been laughable...). On the other hand, direct government regulation wouldn't work for an industry like software. Imagine a hundred people with buckets trying to control a river in case it floods. That would be government regulation of Microsoft.
Much of what Microsoft actually did wrong (contrasted to the actual charges DOJ are bringing in the suit) involves misuse of techonology. You could say it is "borging" small developers and new technologies, then privatizing industry standards to its own proprietary systems to ensure dominance and control. The best way to handle this type of misuse of innovation, misuse of technology, is to deny it patent, copyright, and trademark protection on the technology it misused.
The patents and IP microsoft has are government grants. When they are misused, they can and should be taken away. It's not exactly "open source" but its a start.
I think that a lot of good has come from this lawsuit, but I think if they were to do anything further, nothing but harm to the industry would occur.
What good has come you ask? I think that many consumers that otherwise would have remained in ignorance have been enlightened to some extent about what Microsoft has been doing and that there ARE alternatives to Microsoft and Intel. I've seen more people turning away from Microsoft products, turning away from the Wintel monopoly, and in general more knowledgable about the products and services that companies offer. Normal consumers that realize for once that it isn't imperative that they upgrade to '98, that they don't need the fastest Intel Pentium III chip, that yes, they can open their computer and install a new cd-rom drive...
but I feel that if the gov was going to come in and physically punish M$, then the industry will be shown that they need the Gov to come in and manage them because they can't do it themselves. It shows that legislation might need to be passed, but punishment in the form of breaking up the company is the wrong way to approach the problem.
A lot of people are saying "breaking MS up won't make them go away". So? The point here isn't to crush MS out of existence. The point is to make the tech industry safe for diversity.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I think the best thing that could happen to Microsoft (or worst, depending on point-of-view) is to force them to publish complete API specs for all their products, including things like document formats, and then audit them on a regular basis to ensure (insure?) that their own products are following their published APIs correctly. Further, prevent them from trying to sue anyone who develops products that implement their APIs.
This would allow for truly fair competition while not interfering with their place in "a free and open market." If Microsoft can truly "Innovate" then they will remain on top in the software industry. If it turns out they are merely leveraging OS monopoly and a faster, sleeker company comes along and pulls the rug out from under them, oh well, I guess they weren't all that innovative after all.
I leave it as an excercise to the reader as to how to solve the technical problems of auditing Microsoft to make sure their products really do follow their own published APIs....
-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-
My mom's going to kick you in the face!
Does mean the "caning Gates" option has been eliminated? Dang.
After Ma Bell got ripped apart, the phone companies were definately not in a better position. This country still smarts a bit from that ruling, so I think it is safe to say that MS probably won't be broken up. (IMO) Guilty or not.
As another reader pointed out, breakup may be good for M$, and certainly good for William. But I think it is interesting that M$ made huge public market shifts during the trial to more internet and service company. I think we all know that privately M$ is just doing the same thing and made the market shifts so it will be harder to argue in court that M$ is the same company that is on trial. Same company, same market plan.
-- Moondog
While I think breaking up Microsoft (or attempting
to do so, at least) might be a bit overkill, how
possible would regulation even be? So far, they
seem to near invincible to people's attempts at
regulating their products; what makes you think
that this time around will be any different? Just a thought...
The Government should not break up Microsoft. It would ruin the software market. At this point, anyone can come out on top. The software model is moving towards open source. Companies like Redhat and Sun microsystems are marketing superior products for Free. It's only a matter of time before microsoft will be forced to go open source, or give their software away free. If the government breaks them up, then that will deter Companies Like AOL/Netscape and or Sun or maybe even Redhat getting together and making great things happen (*Definitely* to the consumer's advantage!!). Go away Government, Alexander Keyne's invisible hand has got *all* under control!
The DoJ didn't need to sue M$ in the first place, just refusing to license their software would have been enough of a spanking -- amountint to about a 10% drop in revenues, I beleive.
Microsoft have used their virtual monopoly in the OS marktet to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors in the applications market. Therefore I vote for breaking the company up in order to promote competition - whilst realizing that that will be far from the end of Mr. Gates's reign.
There's nothing irrevocable about breaking up MICROS~9 into "baby bill" companies. As others have pointed out, it doesn't achieve the goal of a hands-off remedy, since it would still be necessary prevent them from, say, rolling MS Office into an "OS" product -- or even vice-versa!
Forcing them to open-source the OS, on the other hand, would inherently give everyone a chance to work from common APIs, provide a baseline platform, and would be irrevocable.
The interesting question here is: How would MICROS~9 likely react once their OS products had been made open source? Is it possible at all that it would have a good effect on the company overall?
If MS-Applications and MS-OS are different companies with SEPERATE bottom lines, and SEPERATE Boards, (Make Gates choose one company and sell his stock in the other) MS-Applications will see that if they follow in lock-step with the goals of MS-OS, it will damage the value of their Stock. No one will lose money like that just to be nice to Bill Gates.
Don't forget about spinning off MS-Networks and MS-TelephoneCompanies. I do not want Microsoft being able to dictate that I need a Microsoft phone to make calls, need a Microsoft OS to have a cable modem or an DSL. Microsoft is expanding into new areas that it can dominate due to its OS related power right now. Imagine what they'd be doing if the justice department wasn't prosecuting them!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Isn't it funny that that some of those who hate Microsoft are still against regulations on business, when it is the lack of regulation in the first place that has created this whole mess? Corporations do not want these regulations because they do not want to be accountable for any of their business practices no matter how harmful they are to consumers, the environment or the low paid people who work for them. It seems that the ones against the breaking up of Microsoft and possible new regulations afterword must have some sort of hidden agenda not good for any of us. (Come on, some of you guys must work for software companies!)
Linux and other operating systems will never be able to begin to compete in such a hostile environment against competition with major competitors. And that is what corporations do not want. That is what they have been fighting against for decades, to ensure our limit of choices, as well as preventing participatory democracy from-heaven forbid-people not tied to corporations.
For starters I am sure we are all aware that their early flagship product MS-DOS is practically a direct hack of CP/M and from that point onward their major products have been nothing but borrowed, purchased, or stolen software. Bill might take a moment to re-read his infamouse letter from the 70's.
But, on the other hand, devisions of Micrsoft have innovated thinks, like you said, small and behind the scenes. That's one of the few advantages of throwing some good talent at a problem. As far as I can remember (and please don't flame me if I'm wrong here) but integrating the Office apps to work together was a first.
Each of the innovations that Microsft programers have made, have been made inside a particular product devlopement group. Breaking up Microsoft to mimic those developement groups would insure those true innovations continue.
People are very likely to just to the conclusion Microsoft hasn't innovated anything because they instantly think of things like The GUI O/S, or wordprocessors, or Internet Browsers. None of these items Microsoft has innovated and even they will have to admit to that.
As far a breaking up Microsft, how much good will that actually accomplish. Microsoft products have the potential of being great products. But products being driven my marketing deadlines and CEO's with egos the size of Texas only works to hinder the developement of those pieces of software.
Is the question about loosening Microsofts grip on computer users as a whole, or trying to make better products? The government will tell you it's about loosening Microsfts grip, Microsoft will tell you it's about making better products. Which is it? The two are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other.
I think the real issue is making Microsoft accountable for the software it releases and improving the overall quality of the software line produced. And I think that can be accomplished by cutting and slashing divisions in to smaller, streamlined, programmer run divisons. So what if they loose some profits for a little while?
Fact: Bill Gates, since the beginning, has always kept enough money in reserve to pay all the salaries for the entire length of a zero profit year.
Microsoft is in no danger of loosing money, no matter what happens. I'm more interested in loosing the blue screens of death when I'm playing games.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
Revoke their charter. Or, to only imprison them, revoke their charter temporarily. Or take their profits for a few years (and give to whom?).
They're the equivalent of a serial killer, as far as businesses are concerned. Why shouldn't we treat them like one? At the least, we need to remove any means they have of hurting others. How can we do that?
It worked before!
The source code for the offending programs, namely Windows 95/98, Internet Explorer, and whatever other products were used for anticompetitive purposes, should be seized and given to the public under the GPL to compensate for the damage they have done.
An Architectural Review Board should be formed to maintain the source trees. The ARB should represent high-tech companies such as IBM, Sun, Apple, SGI, HP, Compaq, Red Hat, etc. Microsoft can be a member, but not with any controlling authority. The ARB should also include representatives of the OSS/Free Software community. These would be a bit harder to choose, but clearly the FSF should be represented, as well as the Mozilla team, etc.
Changes to the main source tree would have to be approved by the ARB. The top-of-trunk code, as well as any derivatives, would be publicly available to anyone wanting to look at it or use it, under the terms of the GPL. That means that anyone wanting to fork off their own version and distribute it could do so, but not without keeping their own source open, etc. Microsoft would be allowed to "innovate" by making contributions (sure, why not?) -- even their application-development divisions would be able to work in tandem with the OS development (again, why not?), but there would be no secret APIs, because all such contributions would have to be open. As an extra provision, Microsoft (at least for some period of time) would not be allowed to distribute any version not approved by the ARB, or any binary-only form. That is, their contributions would have to be adopted into the "official" top-of-trunk version before they could be distributed. This would prevent their use of "embrace-and-extend(-and-extinguish)" tactics.
This might seem excessive, or "cruel and unusual", but it's really perfectly reasonable. If software can be "intellectual property" at all, then it can be confiscated, just like any other kind of property, if it is used to commit a crime. Since this property was the instrument used to commit the crimes, confiscating it would be no different from confiscating a drug dealer's car. Placing it under the GPL would then amount to donating it to the injured parties.
This is approximately the same comment I made back in February, in response to a proposed "source-licensing punishment". The archived page does not have comment links, but mine is about three-fifths of the way down, or just search for my name.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Doesn't anyone else see what's really happening here?
with an opinion piece by a Silicon Valley Congressman, Tom Campbell.
Of course this clown's arguing to break up Microsoft - he represents lots of Microsoft competitors. These folks have been using California's political clout to drive a vendetta against another company that is unfortunate enough to be headquarted in a politically unimportant state. It's a witch hunt against some interlopers who dared to best the Valley's finest. If Microsoft had been founded in the Silicon Valley, it'd be the darling of the industry.
Maybe Microsoft's competitors should try doing a better job of competing in the marketplace instead of paying off congressmen.
I've NEVER had Lynx crash when viewing a page with Java. As far as Java is concerned, Lynx is the most stable browser ever!
(This was humor)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
...but let's make it REALLY fair: eliminate patents, copyrights, trademarks, "intellectual property", etc.
The Sherman Act (anti-bankruptcy), consumer protection laws and so on are really just laws to counteract the effects of already existing anti-capitalist legislation.
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)