Re: Company, government eyeing deal?

[Paul Crowley <paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk>]

Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net> writes:
[quoting some news somewhere]

> Both seem to be considering a range of options that fall into three 
> categories: structural remedies, which would result in a breakup of the 
> company; behavioral remedies, aimed at preventing the repeat of illegal 
> acts; and compulsory licensing, which would force Microsoft to open the 
> Windows code for licensing by other companies.  
> 
> The last alternative is quickly becoming a favorite among some economic 
> consultants working for both the states and the Justice Department and 
> also has found some sympathy among antitrust enforcers.  

Of course if it's only Windows they have to license, watch them
suddenly discover how much of the Windows behaviour that programs
depend on they can "de-integrate" in short order.  The solution to
this that requires least regulatory supervision is to force them to
license everything, Office and all.  

And if you do that, include this twist: the NDAs must explicitly not
prohibit publication of information that affects user-visible
behaviour, such as APIs and file formats.  This would seem more
effective than obliging Microsoft to publish them and then taking them 
to court on the grounds that their documentation was inadequate.

Oh, and don't allow them to charge more than 10,000 x the price of the
software on the shelf.  Oh, and limit the discounts they're allowed to
give out.  Hmm, this avoiding regulatory supervision stuff really is
tricky.  Maybe the "baby Bills" are the right way to go after all.
-- 
  __
\/ o\ paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk  http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley            Upgrade your legacy NT machines to Linux /~\