Re: CMP TechWeb story - "Experts Grapple With Microsoft Remedy" + My opinion

["Robert Reese" <robert.reese@mindspring.com>]

Mr. Mettler wrote:
>How can applications developers be assured of a fair market for their
>products?  (Netscape, Stac, Lantastic, etc.)  Microsoft does not only
>prevent operating systems from entering the market.  Many companies
>selling non operating system products are likewise harmed.
--(Full message below)

If developers stopped making products for the MS operating systems, there
would be no need for the operating systems.  If developers could not compete
fairly in market A, then out of necessity they would compete in market B
once market B became accessible.  This is especially true if there was
little chance that those in control of market A would enter market B.  This
is how the small developer and other applications competitors would compete,
by steering the market into a competitive one, which  would ultimately force
market A's powers-that-be to either compete late in the game, or to fold.
This is what exactly what happened to Apple, and nearly to Novell and Sun's
Java technology.  Apple held an extremely tight leash on the operating
system and the licenses to create Apple OS compliant software.  Apple wanted
to control both hardware as software, and did so successfully.  Even in the
heyday of Apple, there was a severe shortage of software.  What software
existed was priced far higher than identical PC products.  Thus, Apple
literally forced competitor's out of the market for Apple software, and
hardware even.

Microsoft will realize at some point that it must convert its non-OS
applications to Linux if it wants to stay competitive, especially when every
opponent has left its game to play someone else's game.  I'm reminded of the
bully that won't play by the rules, and discovers himself all alone when the
others discover they can simply ignore him and start another game without
him.  That hurts the bully, I'm sure.  That is the kind of pain Microsoft
will feel if it continues to bully competitors into leaving.  No customers
will be interested in purchasing an Microsoft system if there were only
Microsoft applications on it.  If I wanted just a dedicated word processor,
I'd buy a typewriter.  IBM also tried the proprietary-only machine, and was
damaged as badly in the market as Apple was damaged.

Of course, as Mr. Mettler pointed out, this still does not address the short
term, nor does it address punitive actions for past and current
transgressions.  Breaking up Microsoft does sound like a good idea on many
levels, and surely would be if there were not already something tunneling
under the MS foundation.  In my opinion, Microsoft will actually fall faster
if kept together rather than to be splintered.  Splintering will give the MS
factions more flexibility in adapting and adjusting to the market.  Its
easier to turn five  battleships around than it is to turn one aircraft
carrier around, so to speak.  Additionally, Microsoft #1 thru #4 can kill
off Microsoft #5 and align the saved resources between them.  Instead of
wasting time and resources, a leaner, meaner, and WISER MS conglomerate
would result.

>It might be that independent developers would develop Linux applications
>knowing that only in that market they might be free of illegal acts by a
>monopolist.  But, the user base for Linux needs to show real promise
>before substantial applications for the desktop will flood to Linux.

While Microsoft was vigorously defending its market from increasingly vacant
competitors, the leaving competitors would work towards Linux applications.
The dramatic increase of Linux applications seemingly overnight would fuel
the consumer drive toward the Linux operating system, and further away from
a bewildered Microsoft.  Thus, the balance has been reset without the
last-resort of government stepping in.

For immediate relief and punitive actions, I think that many of the
licenses, agreements, and contracts should be changed drastically, and a
method of recompensation to the victims needs to be addressed.  Even the
EULA is too powerful, and should be radically altered to relieve the
consumer.  Personally, I will stick to my first, original conclusion:
Declare the MS OS as an "essential facility", akin to what electrical power
is considered.  Speaking of which, I would dearly like to hear some input as
to what it would do if the MS OS was declared an "essential facility"?

Regards,
Robert Reese~
robert.reese@mindspring.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis A. Mettler <lmettler@lamlaw.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list ANTITRUST <antitrust@essential.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: CMP TechWeb story - "Experts Grapple With Microsoft Remedy" +
My opinion


>
>
>> Robert Reese wrote:
>>
>> Good use of "sound bites" to cover the potential of breaking up MS.
>>
>> A portion:
>> "Antitrust attorneys, economists, and software executives debated the
>> effectiveness of breaking up the software titan, licensing its source
>> code,
>> or imposing rules of business conduct. The conference on "Which
>> Remedies?
>> Appraising Microsoft," was sponsored by consumer advocate Ralph
>> Nader's
>> Essential Information group and the Consumer Project on Technology."
>>
>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990430S0017
>>
>> My two cents' worth:
>> In my personal opinion, I see Linux as taking care of Microsoft'
>> monopoly in
>> the long run.
>
><clip  please excuse... see original post for detailed comments.>
>
>It might be that Linux will solve the OS monopoly in the long run or the
>medium run.
>
>However, that does not address the harm caused by a monopolist in
>bundling its applications with its OS.
>
>How can applications developers be assured of a fair market for their
>products?  (Netscape, Stac, Lantastic, etc.)  Microsoft does not only
>prevent operating systems from entering the market.  Many companies
>selling non operating system products are likewise harmed.
>
>It might be that independent developers would develop Linux applications
>knowing that only in that market they might be free of illegal acts by a
>monopolist.  But, the user base for Linux needs to show real promise
>before substantial applications for the desktop will flood to Linux.
>
>Something might have come along to alleviate the need to break up AT&T
>and Standard Oil too.  Or, maybe not.  But, antitrust law is not about
>what might happen.  It is about illegal acts now that preclude
>competition.  Busting up Microsoft would open up a number of markets to
>competition not just the OS marketplace.
>
>--
>Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
>lmettler@LAMLaw.com
>http://www.lamlaw.com/ (web site reviews Microsoft antitrust transcripts
>daily)