What if MS IE client/server apps are better?

[myturn@vcol.net (John Gelles)]

  	None of the below "what if" conjecture prejudges
  	the facts still to be proved in the legal case against
  	MS -- The "what if" assume MS is guilty.  (If  MS
  	is not guilty, the Justice Department will have to
  	demand a new agreement with MS that will, in
  	fact, prevent monopoly in internet applications):
  
  	           What if MS IE client/server apps are better?
  
  	Considering (a) the record of how MS has been doing
  	business, (b) its current agreement with the Justice Dept.,
  	and (c) the future of competition in internet applications, 
  	what would you do, were you the deciding authority, 
  	in the Justice case and the weight of expert testimony 
  	agreed with David Dunn's thought that MS has at 
  	present a superior set of products?
  
  	I know I would ask the injured parties to recommend
  	the equitable relief they needed to keep them competitive
  	over the next five years.
    
  	What would it be?  I'm not sure.  But a billion dollar fine 
  	might be in order if MS did not 	itself request that it be 
  	allowed to curb future business practice and to lend or 
  	invest, say, half that amount in Netscape  -- something
  	like they may be doing to keep Apple alive.  
  
  	If  MS has been engaging in predatory monopolistic 
  	practices in violation of its consent decree, then the fact 
  	that they now produce a better product that may reduce
  	competition, should not be tolerated. 
  
  	We must have competition in these markets, and if 
  	necessary, a good deal of MS copyrighted (or otherwise 
  	owned) product ought to be placed in the public domain.
  	The spoils of illegal enterprise are forfeit if we would
  	prevent recurrence.
  
  
          John Gelles                   email  address: myturn@vcol.net
          http://www.myturn.org   ;    http://www.rain.org/~jjgelles/
          URL's above seek enactment of an economic bill of rights.