Microsoft Remedies

[rd@cottonwood.com (Rick Dahlgren)]

Is there a win/win possible in the remedies for Microsoft?

As many of you may know, we've been involved in litigation that largely
encompasses access to technology that allows providers of content like us
to be able to (in a common way with large providers) reach consumers with
high value, multimedia content.  

Is the argument that Microsoft has tied their OS to a set of tools
(browser, servers, content creation, and financial transaction software) to
a strategy that somehow hinders other network receivers (end user customers
on the internet) and content providers from choices in what should be an
open public platform for creation and delivery of content and transactions?
 

If so, wouldn't language similar to Computer III, which the FCC recently
abandoned, apply?

The declaratory ruling provides safeguards for interoperability, separate
subsidiary structures, technical disclosures and pre-release safeguards (6
months) prior to deployment of services that incorporate software and
hardware solutions.

The ruling makes the telephone you use interoperate with other telephones
for communications and enhanced services like telephone banking, voice
messaging, etc. by mandating disclosures that allow competitors to
manufacture equipment and software or create competing services with, in
its earliest form, telephone companies.

The concept could provide Microsoft the ability to innovate, but would also
mandate a set of rules and responsibilities that would prohibit Microsoft
from exclusive deals when any application is designated as to be used by
the public for communications that send or receive content or enable
transactions from consumers and providers of products and services over
public networks.

What do you all think?

Rick Dahlgren
rd@cottonwood.com