Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the small-unmarked-bills dept.
Goon writes " Here's an article at CNN about how the Justice department has hired a consultant to gage the effect of breaking up microsoft into 3 or 4 smaller companies. According to the article, it appears that this is what the DOJ is intending to do if a settlement is not reached."
While the firm was hired to gauge the effects of a possible breakup, they were also hired to gauge the financial effects (on the US economy) of all possible solutions. They were not hired to exclusively research a breakup as the slashdot article title and scoop kinda hints at.
In a brief statement issued Thursday, the Justice Department said Greenhill & Co. would act as "financial advisor to assist the [antitrust] division in analyzing financial aspects of the full range of potential remedies in U.S. v. Microsoft, including conduct and structural relief."
On a different note, is anyone else getting tired of hearing about microsoft yet? =]
Breaking up will be good for me and good for you
by
joeler
·
· Score: 3
Breaking up Microsoft will probably increase the personal wealth of Bill Gates and other top investors in Microsoft, as their stocks are split and those splits increase in value. Breaking up Microsoft will create a new type of competition which will bring out the best in all of the individual divisions. Rather than rely on their monopoly power, they will become more dependent on thier own innovations. Microsoft competitors will do better as well, as they will have a better chance to succeed when they bring new innovations to the market.
Likewise, breaking up Microsoft will be cheaper for the taxpayer than paying the the costs on monitoring any consent decrees.Breaking up Microsoft is the best solution, some may not enjoy it at first but in the long run everyone will benifit from it.
.
-- >>>please remove "nospam" from email address
Re:The effect of a breakup
by
evilquaker
·
· Score: 3
>could somebody share their professional opinion of what a breakup would result in?
Well, I don't have a professional opinion, but I'll give it a go... From what I've read, there are two breakup scenerios being thrown around:
Split MS into n "Baby Bills": smaller versions of MS, each with the Windows source code, and each with (some subset of) the various other departments (hardware, Office suites, games, etc.).
Split MS into some combination of distinct companies, based upon some partitioning of the departments (operating systems, hardware, games, office suites, etc.).
The basic effect of 1 I see is that Windows (and perhaps Office, etc...) become fragmented. I don't see much of a direct benefit to Linux/Be/etc, until the versions of Windows become drastically different (which won't happen for many years, if at all).
The effects of option 2 are harder to predict, but it opens the door for things like MS Office being ported to Linux/Be/etc. The big problem with 2 is making sure that the separation takes place in more than name. I've heard (completely unsubstantiated and probably paranoid) rumors that secret channels of communication have already been set up in case of a break-up to keep the app programmers up-to-date with the new undocumented features of the OS, etc. Whether or not that's the case, it would be very hard to show e.g. that MS-App's decision to not port Office to Linux was based only upon Linux's market share, and not at least partly upon some agreement with MS-OS to help retain their desktop monopoly.
-- To within half a percent, pi seconds is a
nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
I know I will probably get moderated down for being off topic again, and shouldn't respond to this typical display of pro-microsoft non-intelligent drible, but what the hell. Heres the deal. The DOJ isn't interfering in business the are interfering in illegal activities. Microsoft has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to use their OS to block competitors. (Sometimes quite literally, remember when that "bug" in Outlook blocked email from the electronic postcard company that an MS deal fell through with). You have to differentiate the difference between business and law. The mafia is a business too. Should we leave them alone? "Ahhh who cares if Don Colione just had two men killed, they owed him money, it's all business." I'm sorry I just don't buy that. If someone is breaking the law just because they are doing it under the name of a corporation doesn't make it right.
There isn't anything stopping Microsoft from simply closing shop in Redmond and moving to Canada. I can tell you without any doubts that our (Canada's) government would roll out the red carpet for them.
Microsoft employs roughly 32,000 people. Generally well educated people, at that. The boost to the economy of a region would be astounding. Assuming 30,000 people at a low $CDN 30,000 per head, that's almost 1 billion in salary each year, half of which goes into the government's pocket. (That's another story...) Corporate taxes would be huge. Microsoft paid several billion to the US Federal government in Fiscal '98. The Canadian government would be all for it.
With regards to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US Government would be powerless to stop the importation of Microsoft products into the US. As IANAL, I'm not sure about the implications of Chapter 15 upon a corporation that changes countries during an ongoing monopoly investigation.
Anyway, here's a link to a CANOE article from a month back that inspired this comment.
------
-- If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
This is a good thing (TM)
by
SmileyBen
·
· Score: 3
Before people get into the usual debates about whether the break up of Micro$oft will be the solution or not, I think this certainly shows a step in the right direction. The DOJ are obviously making sure they know what the options are, and rather than going 'Yeah, I think it'll be a good idea', they're investigating, and finding out whether the consequences will actually be god for the consumers (create real competition) or bad (if you break us up, we will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!).
Overall that they're making absolutely sure of their options and the consequnces, must be a good thing.
Actually this isn't such an implausible scenario, if ESR is correct. I heard him give his piece on "The seven bullets M$ has to avoid to survive the next eighteen months" when he was in Norway a couple of weeks ago.
According to him The DoJ trial was the *least* of M$ problems. I haven't seen a write-up of this, apart from a story in the Irish Times some days ago, but it was pretty hot stuff.
A short summary might be in order, I guess... Keep in mind that I'm just rehashing what ESR said, and don't have the sources for these numbers.
1)The US vs. M$ Trial 2)Private anti-monopoly lawsuits 3)Change in law making stock options an expence (turning a 4 billion profit to a 18 billion defecit) 4)A separate trial for illegal book keeping 5)W2K is in trouble, not only because it's late already, but because many of the Fortune 500 companies have given sentiments that they won't touch it before Service Pack 1 in early 2001. 6)Linux
In all of this the problem is that M$ needs to keep it stockprice rising. My interpretation of what that is (please note that this is my interpretation, I'm no economist, and I can't give ESR's piece verbatim) was that M$ has built their empire on this effect. As long as the stock prices are rising, people will see the stocks as desirable, hence increasing their value. Once that self-perpetuating cycle ends, you get a different dynamics. Those with stock options won't have the incentive of seeing their stocks grow, so they'll start to cash in. Which in turn will mean that M$ stock will become less desirable (being overpriced), and the effect would be similar to a stockmarket crash.
7) M$ is pricing themselves out of the market. This, according to ESR is the big one, as he said, even if M$ dodges all the other bullets, this is the one that will get them in the end, what they simply cannot avoid.
Hardware prices are dropping, whereas M$ needs to constantly increase their profits. Before much of this could come from the exponentially growing market for new computers, while now it has to come from higher prices for their OS. Simply put, you can't run a $500 OS on top of $250 hardware.
Please also note that these are *NOT* ESR's opinions, only my understanding of them. I hope he'll write up this piece himself, but until then I'd like to share this
So, in summation, if these predictions are anywhere near the spot, it is not really necessary to do more, M$ has made its own grave, and now it has to lie in it.
Richard Stallman wrote an interesting piece about what might be the best punishment for Microsoft from the perspective of Free Software. Hmm. Interesting:+) Forcing open publication of the APIs would be good in the short term, but has a couple of Big Drawbacks:
It leaves Microsoft with an instant lead in products - MS can develop their own products against a new and different API, then release the API simultaniously with the product - everyone else is left to play catch-up (yes, this favours OSS over commercial software, as patches could be out in days, but many of MS's commercial competitors would take weeks or months to modify their product to handle the new APIs and file formats, and would probably want recompense for the effort.
It makes MS an instant "industry standard" and reduces everything else to "MS compatable". I don't *want* MS to set the standards for how everything works, I want them to suit the job and the world, not a marketing plan. If we are going to go the Open API route, it should be a standards group designing that API, not MS.
Ok, rant over. If you are interested in alternative approaches, Cringely has put forward HIS masterplan (no doubt it has just as many holes, just in different places) --
--
-=DaveHowe=-
Richard Stallman & Solutions
by
Dacta
·
· Score: 3
I think the first two ideas are very good. I'm not convinced about the third - I think it needs more explaiation. Sure, closed hardware specs are bad, but I'm not sure MS should be punished for them. If we have all the interfaces for MS software, reverse engineering closed source hardware should be easier, anyway.
Re:Breaking up Microsoft
by
evilpenguin
·
· Score: 4
something else will take away Microsoft's monopoly. It's happenned before (IBM)
What you fail to mention is that a big part of the reason IBM lost its monopoly was a decade-long anti-trust investigation by the DoJ. IBM became a more conservative and careful company during this time, giving a number of competitiors considerably wider freedom of action.
I cannot understand how it came to be that the notion of "free markets" (meaning, apparently, comeplete lack of legal and government oversight) came to be enshrined as a faith. And make no mistake, it is a faith. There is no evidence to support the notion that a completely laissez-faire approach to economics produces anything resembling a just and equitable society. What it does produce is violent boom-bust cycles and a small class of plutocrats.
If you compare the present, highly regulated American economy to the American economy of any period prior to and including the Great Depression I think you will find a much wealthier populace, with a greater proportion of the population in the so-called "middle class." Of course there is still tremendous concentration of wealth. That's because wealth is power, and power will act to coerce the system to their interests. Of course there is considerable poverty, but much of this is due to failures of other social institutions, notably education. It is exacerbated by mental illness and drug abuse. I don't claim to understand the nature of these social ills. I have been lucky enough never to have been poor, so I don't pretend that I understand what it means, or why people find themselves there, but I do know that if we educated everybody and made a commitment to take care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves, things would be better than they are now.
Sorry, I've drifted rather far afield. I guess what I'm saying is, when you hear the blanket assertion that "free market: GOOD, government regulation: BAD," question it. I don't think it is really so. If you believe it, ask yourself why.
There is such a thing as a totally unregulated, unfettered, free-market business. We call it the mob. Ask youself if you want to live in a country where a business can do ANYTHING that is economically expedient, from dumping toxic wastes in rivers to assisinating rivals and then ask if regulation is all bad.
I don't like socialism or communism. I do not believe in state ownership of industry or in the elimination of private property. I believe in the profit motive, and in the connection between entrpreneurship and wealth. I believe that a rising tide raises all boats. But I also believe that there are larger social interests than amassing wealth for one's stockholders, and that part of the role of government is to be responsive to those social needs and thus to act as a check on the power of privately held money. That's why your vote is so important. Your vote is the only other currency out there besides the dollars. Sure, dollars largely control elections, but they still have to have your vote. Don't think for moment that monied interests aren't glad that voter turnout keeps falling. That weakens the vote currency and strenthens the cash currency.
In nethack, there is a Troll class of monsters, that behave just like normal monsters, but is nearly impossible to get rid of. If you kill them, and leave the corpse, it will come alive again after a while, and continue hunting you. The only way to get rid of it is to eat the corpse, or put it in a box and lock it.
From reading these discussions I get the feeling Microsoft is a bit similar, I agree though. The name Microsoft is so ubiquitous that by simply having that name, you can sell almost anything (and thus achieve dominance etc. etc.), it's some sort of herd behaviour I suppose. It's like you need to bury the whole of Microsoft for a while, until people get the name out of their heads, and things can start over.
a breakup would leave Microsoft (MSFT) with three or four viable businesses while still being the appropriate punishment for any antitrust violations
In what sense is this a punishment? If history is any guide the shareholders will gain from a breakup if anything, a la Standard Oil.
If split horizontally, the part of Microsoft that still owns the operating system will still be a bad actor, as will the part that owns the office products. If split vertically the companies will simply collude unless prevented from doing so by some sort of regulation - the sort of regulation that BillG has shown great willingness and skill at circumventing in the past.
At minimum the following needs to be accomplished:
Microsoft must be prevented from attacking its competitors and driving them out of business. (it's illegal for a monopoly to do this)
Microsoft must be prevented from subverting public protocols and standards
Microsoft must be prevented from extending its monopoly in office systems by means of secret file formats and protocols
Microsoft must be prevented from leveraging its operating system francise by means of secret/patented api's, protocols and file formats.
Microsoft must be prevented from using its monopoly position in operating systems and office applications to control the behaviour of OEM's, distributors, retailers, ISP's, online services, etc.
Microsoft must be prevented from using its ownership/control of internet access providers and carriers such as cable companies to force use of it's proprietary software and/or protocols.
How are these things going to be accomplished by a breakup? I'm very skeptical that a breakup will address these goals at all. In the end, further remedies will have to be applied or we'll see the same old thing all over again. Then what?
The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is happening anyway. The latter would mainly help others proprietary application developers compete, which would only offer users alternative ways to let go of their freedom. So I propose three remedies that would help enable free software operating systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while respecting users' freedom. These three remedies directly address the three biggest obstacles to development of free operating systems, and to giving them the capability of running programs written for Windows. They also directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the "Halloween documents") it will use to obstruct free software. It would be most effective to use all three of these remedies together.
A few points about Stallman's remarks:
Stallman says he proposes three remedies that would "help enable free software operating systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while respecting users' freedom." Funny, I don't remember reading anything in Penfield's FoF (or in Antitrust law in general) that says that any stated purpose is to enable free operating systems, GNU/Linux or otherwise. Stallman seems to be taking a (flawed) position that the purpose of Antitrust laws is to protect the alternative parties (e.g. Microsoft's competitors, free or otherwise) While his suggestions go toward improving software for consumers, he seems more interested in making his own agenda easier to achieve. While free (beer or speech) software might be beneficial to consumers, there's no evidence in the FoF to support that a goal would be to strengthen the Open Source movement.
Requiring Microsoft to "publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats" is probably the best suggestion he makes. However,...
"Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software." I don't see this helping anything, I think that this issues is not addressed anywhere in the FoF that I can find. Indeed, I think this is Stallman's own agenda handily finding it's way into reparations as a result of another document, the FoF, which doesn't address patent abuse at all, that I can see.
"Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published" And then Stallman goes on to point out that this wasn't even Microsoft's doing! Gee, let's use the DOJ FoF as a milk-crate I can stand on to espouse my own agenda!
I think that Stallman is ignoring the FoF where his personal agenda isn't addressed by it.
-- --
"In order to have power, I must be taken seriously."
-Mojo Jojo
To put it bluntly, see the subject. It won't work. It can't work.
Why?
Microsoft is too big, and too powerful. What will a breakup do to them? Well, there's two options.
One; the smaller companies will duke it out till one buys up the rest, and we're back to the Microsoft we all know and loathe.
Two; the smaller companies simply 'collaborate' on everything (and I do mean everything) resulting in the same problem we have now; everything being tied together inseperably.
A breakup is not the answer. The only answer that I can think of is market forbiddance. What do I mean? I mean Microsoft needs to be banned from certain markets. Productivity software, "full featured" web browsers, and proprietary programming languages.
What good will that do, beyond limiting Microsoft's ability to compete (as I'm sure everyone sees it) and taking away some very effective revenue? It'll force Microsoft to stop stagnating and actually INNOVATE again. Yes, there was a time Microsoft was being innovative. FoxPro was the first relational database application that not only could spit out binaries, but ran on multiple operating systems INCLUDING Xenix286 and could spit out binaries for ANY operating system FROM ANY operating system if you got the runtime libraries! FoxPro was a great product. But it turned Windows specific, and became stagnant.
Now, what is a proprietary programming language? I define it as any programming language that is specific ONLY to Windows. For example, Visual Basic, Visual J++/ActiveX, FoxPro, and MS SQL. Those of you saying 'well there goes everything down the drain' - wait.
I would propose that if Microsoft converts a proprietary programming language to a non-proprietary language, ie; FoxPro for Solaris, AIX, Linux, *and* Windows, or a STANDARDIZED non-proprietary language, ie; MS SQL, Visual C++, that they should be allowed to sell it!
But they must also be STRICTLY regulated. Microsoft is most certainly guilty of price fixing. They must be prevented from doing such ever again. Their prices must be regulated in a fair and just manner. Meaning that if they make, say, FoxPro for Windows $399, they can't make FoxPro for AIX $999. That's unreasonable. The costs of the software must be justified before their outrageous prices can be charged. ($1000 for NT4 Server in some situations?! That's gotta stop.)
Those of you whining that stopping MS from doing "full featured" web browsers will kill them in today's Internet, hush now. It won't. A full featured web browser is one that integrates email, all kinds of other goodies, and also does http. Were Microsoft to make IE uninstallable, and remove Outlook Express, MS Wallet, and most of the other addons, then IE wouldn't be a full featured web browser. Netscape Communicator is a full featured web browser. Mozilla is. They provide everything in one package, tied tightly together. Untie those addons, and it's no longer full featured by my definition. This leaves Microsoft able to continue their development on IE and it's features with Windows whathaveyou.
Productivity software.. that's one of MS' biggest markets. Why ban them from there? Because they abuse their market share. Look at Office 2000's cost. MS Word for DOS used to be less than $50. Now they can justify over $1000 for a productivity suite, while I can get StarOffice (bloated bugware it is) for $50, and I can get Corel's suite for about $200? I'm sorry, no. Not to mention the fact that it ties in with the OS on top of it. Those of you who whine that that's unfair, no - it's not. Charging you $1000 for an annoying paperclip is unfair.
Just my $0.02 and opinions. Gotta run to get in on the VA Linux IPO now - they sent a second or third round of letters December *FIRST*. If you haven't checked your email, DO SO. Reminder to all you VA Linux IPO people, YOUR PAPERWORK (confidential indication of interest and limited use account application) MUST BE IN TODAY!
Slashdot Mirror
While the firm was hired to gauge the effects of a possible breakup, they were also hired to gauge the financial effects (on the US economy) of all possible solutions. They were not hired to exclusively research a breakup as the slashdot article title and scoop kinda hints at.
In a brief statement issued Thursday, the Justice Department said Greenhill & Co. would act as "financial advisor to assist the [antitrust] division in analyzing financial aspects of the full range of potential remedies in U.S. v. Microsoft, including conduct and structural relief."
On a different note, is anyone else getting tired of hearing about microsoft yet? =]
Peace Techno is our future!
It can be found here.
Breaking up Microsoft will probably increase the personal wealth of Bill Gates and other top investors in Microsoft, as their stocks are split and those splits increase in value. Breaking up Microsoft will
create a new type of competition which will bring out the best in all of the individual divisions. Rather than rely on their monopoly power, they will become more dependent on thier own innovations. Microsoft competitors will do better as well, as they will have a better chance to succeed when they bring new innovations to the market.
Likewise, breaking up Microsoft will be cheaper for the taxpayer than paying the the costs on monitoring any consent decrees.Breaking up Microsoft is the best solution, some may not enjoy it at first but in the long run everyone will benifit from it.
.
>>>please remove "nospam" from email address
Well, I don't have a professional opinion, but I'll give it a go...
From what I've read, there are two breakup scenerios being thrown around:
- Split MS into n "Baby Bills": smaller versions of MS, each with the Windows source code, and each with (some subset of) the various other departments (hardware, Office suites, games, etc.).
- Split MS into some combination of distinct companies, based upon some partitioning of the departments (operating systems, hardware, games, office suites, etc.).
The basic effect of 1 I see is that Windows (and perhaps Office, etc...) become fragmented. I don't see much of a direct benefit to Linux/Be/etc, until the versions of Windows become drastically different (which won't happen for many years, if at all).The effects of option 2 are harder to predict, but it opens the door for things like MS Office being ported to Linux/Be/etc. The big problem with 2 is making sure that the separation takes place in more than name. I've heard (completely unsubstantiated and probably paranoid) rumors that secret channels of communication have already been set up in case of a break-up to keep the app programmers up-to-date with the new undocumented features of the OS, etc. Whether or not that's the case, it would be very hard to show e.g. that MS-App's decision to not port Office to Linux was based only upon Linux's market share, and not at least partly upon some agreement with MS-OS to help retain their desktop monopoly.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
Heres the deal. The DOJ isn't interfering in business the are interfering in illegal activities. Microsoft has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to use their OS to block competitors. (Sometimes quite literally, remember when that "bug" in Outlook blocked email from the electronic postcard company that an MS deal fell through with). You have to differentiate the difference between business and law.
The mafia is a business too. Should we leave them alone? "Ahhh who cares if Don Colione just had two men killed, they owed him money, it's all business." I'm sorry I just don't buy that. If someone is breaking the law just because they are doing it under the name of a corporation doesn't make it right.
There isn't anything stopping Microsoft from simply closing shop in Redmond and moving to Canada. I can tell you without any doubts that our (Canada's) government would roll out the red carpet for them.
Microsoft employs roughly 32,000 people. Generally well educated people, at that. The boost to the economy of a region would be astounding. Assuming 30,000 people at a low $CDN 30,000 per head, that's almost 1 billion in salary each year, half of which goes into the government's pocket. (That's another story...) Corporate taxes would be huge. Microsoft paid several billion to the US Federal government in Fiscal '98. The Canadian government would be all for it.
With regards to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US Government would be powerless to stop the importation of Microsoft products into the US. As IANAL, I'm not sure about the implications of Chapter 15 upon a corporation that changes countries during an ongoing monopoly investigation.
Anyway, here's a link to a CANOE article from a month back that inspired this comment.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Before people get into the usual debates about whether the break up of Micro$oft will be the solution or not, I think this certainly shows a step in the right direction. The DOJ are obviously making sure they know what the options are, and rather than going 'Yeah, I think it'll be a good idea', they're investigating, and finding out whether the consequences will actually be god for the consumers (create real competition) or bad (if you break us up, we will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!).
Overall that they're making absolutely sure of their options and the consequnces, must be a good thing.
According to him The DoJ trial was the *least* of M$ problems. I haven't seen a write-up of this, apart from a story in the Irish Times some days ago, but it was pretty hot stuff.
A short summary might be in order, I guess... Keep in mind that I'm just rehashing what ESR said, and don't have the sources for these numbers.
1)The US vs. M$ Trial
2)Private anti-monopoly lawsuits
3)Change in law making stock options an expence (turning a 4 billion profit to a 18 billion defecit)
4)A separate trial for illegal book keeping
5)W2K is in trouble, not only because it's late already, but because many of the Fortune 500 companies have given sentiments that they won't touch it before Service Pack 1 in early 2001.
6)Linux
In all of this the problem is that M$ needs to keep it stockprice rising. My interpretation of what that is (please note that this is my interpretation, I'm no economist, and I can't give ESR's piece verbatim) was that M$ has built their empire on this effect. As long as the stock prices are rising, people will see the stocks as desirable, hence increasing their value. Once that self-perpetuating cycle ends, you get a different dynamics. Those with stock options won't have the incentive of seeing their stocks grow, so they'll start to cash in. Which in turn will mean that M$ stock will become less desirable (being overpriced), and the effect would be similar to a stockmarket crash.
7) M$ is pricing themselves out of the market. This, according to ESR is the big one, as he said, even if M$ dodges all the other bullets, this is the one that will get them in the end, what they simply cannot avoid.
Hardware prices are dropping, whereas M$ needs to constantly increase their profits. Before much of this could come from the exponentially growing market for new computers, while now it has to come from higher prices for their OS. Simply put, you can't run a $500 OS on top of $250 hardware.
Please also note that these are *NOT* ESR's opinions, only my understanding of them. I hope he'll write up this piece himself, but until then I'd like to share this
So, in summation, if these predictions are anywhere near the spot, it is not really necessary to do more, M$ has made its own grave, and now it has to lie in it.
Eythain
Hmm. Interesting
Forcing open publication of the APIs would be good in the short term, but has a couple of Big Drawbacks:
- It leaves Microsoft with an instant lead in products - MS can develop their own products against a new and different API, then release the API simultaniously with the product - everyone else is left to play catch-up (yes, this favours OSS over commercial software, as patches could be out in days, but many of MS's commercial competitors would take weeks or months to modify their product to handle the new APIs and file formats, and would probably want recompense for the effort.
- It makes MS an instant "industry standard" and reduces everything else to "MS compatable". I don't *want* MS to set the standards for how everything works, I want them to suit the job and the world, not a marketing plan. If we are going to go the Open API route, it should be a standards group designing that API, not MS.
Ok, rant over. If you are interested in alternative approaches, Cringely has put forward HIS masterplan (no doubt it has just as many holes, just in different places)--
-=DaveHowe=-
I think the first two ideas are very good. I'm not convinced about the third - I think it needs more explaiation. Sure, closed hardware specs are bad, but I'm not sure MS should be punished for them. If we have all the interfaces for MS software, reverse engineering closed source hardware should be easier, anyway.
What you fail to mention is that a big part of the reason IBM lost its monopoly was a decade-long anti-trust investigation by the DoJ. IBM became a more conservative and careful company during this time, giving a number of competitiors considerably wider freedom of action.
I cannot understand how it came to be that the notion of "free markets" (meaning, apparently, comeplete lack of legal and government oversight) came to be enshrined as a faith. And make no mistake, it is a faith. There is no evidence to support the notion that a completely laissez-faire approach to economics produces anything resembling a just and equitable society. What it does produce is violent boom-bust cycles and a small class of plutocrats.
If you compare the present, highly regulated American economy to the American economy of any period prior to and including the Great Depression I think you will find a much wealthier populace, with a greater proportion of the population in the so-called "middle class." Of course there is still tremendous concentration of wealth. That's because wealth is power, and power will act to coerce the system to their interests. Of course there is considerable poverty, but much of this is due to failures of other social institutions, notably education. It is exacerbated by mental illness and drug abuse. I don't claim to understand the nature of these social ills. I have been lucky enough never to have been poor, so I don't pretend that I understand what it means, or why people find themselves there, but I do know that if we educated everybody and made a commitment to take care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves, things would be better than they are now.
Sorry, I've drifted rather far afield. I guess what I'm saying is, when you hear the blanket assertion that "free market: GOOD, government regulation: BAD," question it. I don't think it is really so. If you believe it, ask yourself why.
There is such a thing as a totally unregulated, unfettered, free-market business. We call it the mob. Ask youself if you want to live in a country where a business can do ANYTHING that is economically expedient, from dumping toxic wastes in rivers to assisinating rivals and then ask if regulation is all bad.
I don't like socialism or communism. I do not believe in state ownership of industry or in the elimination of private property. I believe in the profit motive, and in the connection between entrpreneurship and wealth. I believe that a rising tide raises all boats. But I also believe that there are larger social interests than amassing wealth for one's stockholders, and that part of the role of government is to be responsive to those social needs and thus to act as a check on the power of privately held money. That's why your vote is so important. Your vote is the only other currency out there besides the dollars. Sure, dollars largely control elections, but they still have to have your vote. Don't think for moment that monied interests aren't glad that voter turnout keeps falling. That weakens the vote currency and strenthens the cash currency.
It's all interrelated... Think...
In nethack, there is a Troll class of monsters, that behave just like normal monsters, but is nearly impossible to get rid of. If you kill them, and leave the corpse, it will come alive again after a while, and continue hunting you. The only way to get rid of it is to eat the corpse, or put it in a box and lock it.
From reading these discussions I get the feeling Microsoft is a bit similar, I agree though. The name Microsoft is so ubiquitous that by simply having that name, you can sell almost anything (and thus achieve dominance etc. etc.), it's some sort of herd behaviour I suppose. It's like you need to bury the whole of Microsoft for a while, until people get the name out of their heads, and things can start over.
In what sense is this a punishment? If history is any guide the shareholders will gain from a breakup if anything, a la Standard Oil.
If split horizontally, the part of Microsoft that still owns the operating system will still be a bad actor, as will the part that owns the office products. If split vertically the companies will simply collude unless prevented from doing so by some sort of regulation - the sort of regulation that BillG has shown great willingness and skill at circumventing in the past.
At minimum the following needs to be accomplished:
Microsoft must be prevented from attacking its competitors and driving them out of business. (it's illegal for a monopoly to do this)
Microsoft must be prevented from subverting public protocols and standards
Microsoft must be prevented from extending its monopoly in office systems by means of secret file formats and protocols
Microsoft must be prevented from leveraging its operating system francise by means of secret/patented api's, protocols and file formats.
Microsoft must be prevented from using its monopoly position in operating systems and office applications to control the behaviour of OEM's, distributors, retailers, ISP's, online services, etc.
Microsoft must be prevented from using its ownership/control of internet access providers and carriers such as cable companies to force use of it's proprietary software and/or protocols.
How are these things going to be accomplished by a breakup? I'm very skeptical that a breakup will address these goals at all. In the end, further remedies will have to be applied or we'll see the same old thing all over again. Then what?
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
A few points about Stallman's remarks:
I think that Stallman is ignoring the FoF where his personal agenda isn't addressed by it.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
To put it bluntly, see the subject. It won't work. It can't work.
:)
Why?
Microsoft is too big, and too powerful. What will a breakup do to them? Well, there's two options.
One; the smaller companies will duke it out till one buys up the rest, and we're back to the Microsoft we all know and loathe.
Two; the smaller companies simply 'collaborate' on everything (and I do mean everything) resulting in the same problem we have now; everything being tied together inseperably.
A breakup is not the answer. The only answer that I can think of is market forbiddance. What do I mean? I mean Microsoft needs to be banned from certain markets. Productivity software, "full featured" web browsers, and proprietary programming languages.
What good will that do, beyond limiting Microsoft's ability to compete (as I'm sure everyone sees it) and taking away some very effective revenue? It'll force Microsoft to stop stagnating and actually INNOVATE again. Yes, there was a time Microsoft was being innovative. FoxPro was the first relational database application that not only could spit out binaries, but ran on multiple operating systems INCLUDING Xenix286 and could spit out binaries for ANY operating system FROM ANY operating system if you got the runtime libraries! FoxPro was a great product. But it turned Windows specific, and became stagnant.
Now, what is a proprietary programming language? I define it as any programming language that is specific ONLY to Windows. For example, Visual Basic, Visual J++/ActiveX, FoxPro, and MS SQL. Those of you saying 'well there goes everything down the drain' - wait.
I would propose that if Microsoft converts a proprietary programming language to a non-proprietary language, ie; FoxPro for Solaris, AIX, Linux, *and* Windows, or a STANDARDIZED non-proprietary language, ie; MS SQL, Visual C++, that they should be allowed to sell it!
But they must also be STRICTLY regulated. Microsoft is most certainly guilty of price fixing. They must be prevented from doing such ever again. Their prices must be regulated in a fair and just manner. Meaning that if they make, say, FoxPro for Windows $399, they can't make FoxPro for AIX $999. That's unreasonable. The costs of the software must be justified before their outrageous prices can be charged. ($1000 for NT4 Server in some situations?! That's gotta stop.)
Those of you whining that stopping MS from doing "full featured" web browsers will kill them in today's Internet, hush now. It won't. A full featured web browser is one that integrates email, all kinds of other goodies, and also does http. Were Microsoft to make IE uninstallable, and remove Outlook Express, MS Wallet, and most of the other addons, then IE wouldn't be a full featured web browser. Netscape Communicator is a full featured web browser. Mozilla is. They provide everything in one package, tied tightly together. Untie those addons, and it's no longer full featured by my definition. This leaves Microsoft able to continue their development on IE and it's features with Windows whathaveyou.
Productivity software.. that's one of MS' biggest markets. Why ban them from there? Because they abuse their market share. Look at Office 2000's cost. MS Word for DOS used to be less than $50. Now they can justify over $1000 for a productivity suite, while I can get StarOffice (bloated bugware it is) for $50, and I can get Corel's suite for about $200? I'm sorry, no. Not to mention the fact that it ties in with the OS on top of it. Those of you who whine that that's unfair, no - it's not. Charging you $1000 for an annoying paperclip is unfair.
Just my $0.02 and opinions. Gotta run to get in on the VA Linux IPO now - they sent a second or third round of letters December *FIRST*. If you haven't checked your email, DO SO. Reminder to all you VA Linux IPO people, YOUR PAPERWORK (confidential indication of interest and limited use account application) MUST BE IN TODAY!
Have a good one.
-RISCy Business
your company here.
shelby != ford