Alternative MS solutions - replying to Mr. Dahlgren and Mr. Mettler's latest letters.

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

It seems that we are all looking at different pieces of the MS puzzle.  Mr.
Dahlgren is looking at the telecommunications and hardware side, Mr. Mettler
is looking at the software vendor and developer industry, and I'm looking at
consumer interests.  Perhaps my definition of "essential facility" is
incorrect.  If any of the above is incorrect, please post a correction.
Same applies to my definition of "Essential Facility".

If my definition of "Essential Facility" is correct, it means that everyone
has the right to obtain the "Essential Facility".  For example, power
companies must provide power for a *reasonable* price to anyone within their
area.  Granted, I've no idea behind everything that power companies can and
cannot do.  I cannot choose whom provides my power, but because electrical
power is considered an essential facility, it is accessible to me for nearly
a not-for-profit fee.  However, the operating system on a PC is like a
powerplant.  If the operating system is considered an essential facility,
Microsoft can only charge a very slight fee for it.  This would force the
opening of the OS source code and programming interfaces (APIs).  No one
would have a competitive advantage if equal access to the OS is standard.
Better yet, force all "essential facility" operating systems to be released
for free, or, at most, for cost plus a reasonable margin like the power
companies have to do.

Java would have made an excellent operating system, by the way.  Any
application would run on any machine containing a virtual machine for the
app's platform.  This is probably what truly scared Microsoft.  Software
vendors could make java-native programs, bypassing the MS operating system
altogether, or convert existing MSOS-based applications run on Java.
Unfortunately, between Sun and MS, this opportunity has been destroyed.
Java is still around, but is mortally wounded.

I can understand Rick Dahlgren's position as it relates to the
telecommunications industry.  Interestingly, AT&T and AOL pose greater
threats to him than does Microsoft, but it does help to get unusual insights
such as Rick's in these discussions.  He has brough up a lot of stuff I have
not seen anywhere or thought of.  Unfortunately, I find Mr. Mettler's
suggestion to basically shatter Microsoft into dozens of insignificant parts
a bit much.  His suggestion for splitting Microsoft vertically and
horizontally IS valid though; the computer industry is itself both a
vertical and horizontal industry, making it fairly unique.  In fact, I
cannot think of any other industry so widely dispersed.  Mr. Mettler's
proposition does not take into account the one really good thing Microsoft
has done for the industry, which is finally force the individual vendors to
standardize around a platform, albeit a proprietary one.  I, too, remember
the days when it was virtually every company for itself.  One of the reasons
DOS was so limiting was because it could only handle one application at a
time.  Imagine what it would be like if each software vendor forced you to
use only their version of an operating system to use their product.  That is
one nightmare that might actually occur if Mr. Mettler's ideas are carried
through.

If the software industry is going to be interfered with, the best way is to
do it using the contracts the industry is based on, not the software.  The
only way Microsoft has maintained its hold is through contracts and
licenses.  This is the easiest and most effective way of handling Microsoft,
and also of handling punitive damages.  Limit what can be in the contractual
agreements, and how they can be enforced.

Perhaps banning software licensing completely is the way to go.  Outright
ownership of the application (but not the code) is best for the consumer
anyway.  Copyright protection is designed to prevent illegal copying and
distribution already, so why do we need a license?  Declaring the bad ones
void, cutting out the violating clauses from contracts, and gutting the
EULAs will cobble Microsoft as well as any other software company gaining an
anti-competitive foothold.  I'll bet forcing Microsoft to fulfill its
contractual agreement to refund unused operating systems would be an
eye-opener for them as well!

Shattering Microsoft is not going to help.  It will leave a number of voids
in the industry, all of which will be filled promptly by another company
intent on locking their portion of the industry.  If the contractual and
licensing aspect is done correctly, this will inhibit any long-term problems
as well by preventing non-competitive agreements to be made at all.

Robert Reese~
robert.reese@mindspring.com
rwr@mindspring.com
==================================================================

---------------
>>
BELOW: Mr. Mettler wrote, in a posting titled: Experts did not Grapple With
all options
>>

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)