RN column on MS remdies

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

The following is a recent column by Ralph Nader on remedies
for the Microsoft antitrust case.  Jamie


--------------------------------
http://www.sfbg.com/nader/51.html

April 21, 1999

Antitrust Me
Those seeking a remedy for the Microsoft debacle must chart a new
course.

By Ralph Nader

As the government's antitrust case against Microsoft winds down, the
question is no longer whether Microsoft violated antitrust laws but
rather what can be done to curb its most harmful monopolistic practices.

The case being tried by the U.S. Department of Justice and 19 state
attorneys general has been a textbook tutorial on how anticompetitive
conduct harms consumers through higher prices, forced upgrades, degraded
performance of competitors' products, and restricted consumer choice.
However, there is no clear remedy for the hydra-headed problem, and
public debate on the issue is nearly nonexistent.

The corrective measures currently under consideration go far beyond
those imposed on Microsoft in 1995, when, after years of investigating
anticompetitive practices, the Department of Justice first legally
pressed Microsoft to change its ways. Some have a familiar ring, such as
breaking the software giant into different lines of business, like the
earlier AT&T or Standard Oil cases. Other remedies are more novel. Among
other things, the government might require Microsoft to:

     Auction off several licenses for Microsoft's intellectual property,
creating instant competitors for its main software products.

     Provide rival programmers with the technical information they need
to make products work properly with Microsoft Windows or Microsoft
Office.

     Stop using discriminatory pricing to discipline computer
manufacturers who offer software from competitors.

     Support or not interfere with open or third party protocols that
run on top of Windows or Microsoft Office.

     Unbundle various components of Windows or Microsoft Office.

Some of these sanctions could be implemented on a "stand alone" basis,
while others would work together.

Microsoft itself has not really joined the debate, its leaders perhaps
thinking the lack of consensus will benefit the company by giving an
impression that no one knows what to do to solve the problems.

But one thing is clear: Any settlement or court-ordered remedy will have
enormous impact on consumers, the future of the Internet, and the
computer and software industries. Any corrective measure should fit well
with an industry that is rapidly changing, so that the technological
stagnation that now prevails in areas dominated by Microsoft is replaced
with innovation. This case should end with a strong measure of
protection  for the public against monopolistic practices, and the 
remedies should  be forward looking, aimed at preventing future harms as
well as addressing past transgressions. The outcome will be instrumental 
in  defining the rules for competition in the next century.

Essential Information and groups such as the Consumer Project on
Technology are trying to promote broader debate on possible Miscrosoft
sanctions and have scheduled a workshop on April 30 in Washington, D.C.
The conference information is available at 
http://www.appraising-microsoft.org.


-- 
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
I can be reached at love@cptech.org, by telephone 202.387.8030,
by fax at 202.234.5176. CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org