Experts did not Grapple With all options

["Lewis A. Mettler" <lmettler@lamlaw.com>]

Unfortunately I missed the conference on April 30th.  And clearly in one
day not all solutions can be fully evaluated.

However, I find little mention of splitting Microsoft both horizontally
and vertically at the same time.

First, split up Microsoft allow all product lines (including Word and
Excel for a starting point).

Then take the major products like the Windows 95/98 and NT and slit them
again 6 or 8 times.  Now take these 30 units or so and either set up new
companies with existing shareholders getting the new shares or sell them
outright to existing companies in the marketplace.

What would happen?  Would HP, IBM, Novel, Caldera, Corel, Symantec,
Dell, Compaq and others bid for a "non-exclusive" but outright ownership
of the Windows code base?  NT?  Windows98?  You can ask them.  But, my
guess is that 6 or 8 buyers could easily be found.  Same with Word. 
Same with Excel.

But what about fragmentation of the technology?  Well.  If one of these
companies wanted to be incompatible with the "standard" version, good
luck to them, right?  But, HP, IBM and Compaq would go with the
standard.

Lately Microsoft has expressed strong views on ISO standards.  Well. 
Let the companies who buy a "copy" (not license..."buy"), form their own
standards organization to assume that applications written to the
standard will run on all standard versions.  A real advantage of this
approach would be the unlikely hood that any application would be
bundled with the OS by all vendors.   So the browser remains an
application with any company having a fair shot at that market if they
develop superior technology or ideas (...this is very important).

Call this the "grid split" if you must.  The use of the terms "vertical"
and "horizontal" are not being commonly applied because of the choice
between applying those terms either before or after the split.

If you want to solve the monopoly problem, a simple solution is
available.  Applying a "grid split" puts old Microsoft products in no
more disadvantage than all other products now have in the computer
industry.  And, compared to Standard Oil and AT&T, there is no
infrastructure that needs to be worried about.  There is no property to
be concerned about.  It is all on one big floppy somewhere.  And, all
employees are highly mobile and most likely looking for superior
opportunities.

A computer software company is the easiest to split up.  It can be done
in short order.  (Of course it would put a lot of accountants and
lawyers to work for awhile.)

Which Microsoft products would fall flat on their face if they had to
compete straight up?  Which products could be sold non exclusively
multiple times yet retain a standard use attractive to consumers?

Look at Microsoft the same way you would any company about to be split
up.  Why is it necessary that Microsoft retain an unfair advantage over
the thousands of other software companies?  Why is it necessary that
Microsoft decide all technical issues and standards?  (We do have other
standards bodies and can easily form more. They work too.  And, when
they work, competition is fair.)

This monopoly problem does have a solution.  And, anyone that suggests a
solution may have more problems than what we have now, is most likely
protecting their tuff.  What we have now is the total absence of
competition in some very key markets.  What we have now is one company
telling everyone which products and technologies they must purchase. 
What we have now is an industry so sick that many highly qualified
people work for free simply because the paying job they really want does
not exist.

-- 
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.(Attorney and Software Developer)
lmettler@LAMLaw.com
http://www.lamlaw.com/ (web site reviews Microsoft antitrust transcripts
daily)