IANAAL (I am not an American lawyer), but presumably part of the deal would include limitations as to who could own stock in the companies. There is (was?) a UK concept called the 'Golden Share', in which no-one could own more than 15% of any one company.
The court might, for example, demand that no one shareholder could, directly or indirectly, hold more than 20% of more than one company. So Bill could keep the Windows company, but would be limited as to what he could own in Microsoft Applications.
There might also be 'collusion' conditions limiting the ability of the baby Bills to enter into secret contracts.
I suspect that if Microsoft was forcibly split up, it would be along the lines defined by the DOJ when they brought the case. So since part of the case was against illegal tying, then IE and Windows would be forcibly seperated. The applications market, which was not part of the case, would be a third company.
The Applications group would be the one most likely to keep the Microsoft name, since Windows is as well known a name as Microsoft, and for all its future importance, the Internet group is not the cash cow that Office is.
I also think that Hardware could do very well out of this. I get the impression that Microsoft hardware is largely used to launch new hardware initiatives that other companies take up (mice wheels, Windows keys, joystick improvements). It has the style, the imagination and the quality to go a lot further when it is freed from the politics.
It would make a very plausible fourth company, but that won't happen unless Microsoft wants it to. -- James Wilkinson
Re:The Church: protector of freedom and progress
on
Cybernauts Awake!
·
· Score: 1
I can understand where you're coming from (haven't you heard that often enough?) but the Church of England is pretty good about allowing debate and rational thinking.
Its reputation for having a few crackpots is due to the fact that they do encourage people to think about their faith, and some of them put forward some pretty odd ideas as they consider their faith.
This is because we believe that our faith is true, and can stand up to criticism, discussion, and debate.
At the central level, it is becoming pretty good at understanding technology and the effects on society and the way we worship (DTPed service sheets, for example), and at communicating that to the parishes.
Slashdot Mirror
The court might, for example, demand that no one shareholder could, directly or indirectly, hold more than 20% of more than one company. So Bill could keep the Windows company, but would be limited as to what he could own in Microsoft Applications.
There might also be 'collusion' conditions limiting the ability of the baby Bills to enter into secret contracts.
I suspect that if Microsoft was forcibly split up, it would be along the lines defined by the DOJ when they brought the case. So since part of the case was against illegal tying, then IE and Windows would be forcibly seperated. The applications market, which was not part of the case, would be a third company.
The Applications group would be the one most likely to keep the Microsoft name, since Windows is as well known a name as Microsoft, and for all its future importance, the Internet group is not the cash cow that Office is.
I also think that Hardware could do very well out of this. I get the impression that Microsoft hardware is largely used to launch new hardware initiatives that other companies take up (mice wheels, Windows keys, joystick improvements). It has the style, the imagination and the quality to go a lot further when it is freed from the politics.
It would make a very plausible fourth company, but that won't happen unless Microsoft wants it to.
-- James Wilkinson
Its reputation for having a few crackpots is due to the fact that they do encourage people to think about their faith, and some of them put forward some pretty odd ideas as they consider their faith.
This is because we believe that our faith is true, and can stand up to criticism, discussion, and debate.
At the central level, it is becoming pretty good at understanding technology and the effects on society and the way we worship (DTPed service sheets, for example), and at communicating that to the parishes.