[Am-info] Re: End Game/ feeble solution

[Case Roole]

The basic idea behind the split is that MSApps will port its software to other
platforms to extend its market share and become less dependent of MSOS. This
should reduce the applications barrier to entry significantly. The availability
of the monopoly products MS Office (and now) MSIE could make, say, BeOS and
Linux a viable option for the business market. Thus the middleware threat to
Windows by Netscape's Navigator would come back with a vengeance in the form of
Office and MSIE!

For details on this line of thought you could read Rebecca Henderson's
remedy-supporting brief at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4600/4644.htm
(start below item 98 for the arguments for these specific remedies)

Of course, MSApps is not forced to port its wares to non-MSOS platforms and I
don't expect them to do it. After all, extending their market share by porting
to different platforms would only be interesting if those different platforms
already have market share. As they don't, the easiest way for MSApps to be able
to run on all platforms would be to make sure that the MSOS monopoly is
maintained.

Fortunately, this flaw in the DOJ's remedy is prevented from having a negative
effect by Microsoft's strategical goal to accept nothing but a carte blanche to
leverage its monopoly to any new market that it sets its eyes on, a strategy
that will keep them in court for years to come.

Meanwhile the arguments against Microsoft's position and actions get a chance to
become more articulated, while Microsoft itself is ever more troubled to
maintain the consistency of its web of deception. By not accepting the easy
way out that the DOJ has offered it, Microsoft is keeping its critics mobilized
which will do it vastly more harm than the DOJ ever could.

-cjr

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Glenn Livezey wrote:
> > From: sturde@az.com
> > >IN RE: comments by Glenn T. Livezey.
> > Your comments about the inadequacy of the decision.  Judge Jackson in his
> > interview commented (and I love his comment) that how can one predict the
> > future, when it is so difficult to reconstruct the historical past.  He
> > commented that he was not an economist, did not feel adequate to create
> > his own solution, that the DOJ and 19 States Attorney General had
> > consulted the best and the brightest for their remedy, so he accepted it.
> > >From such a viewpoint, his decision makes sense.
> > James Sturdevant
> 
> I have the utmost respect for the Judge and his commentary, which is more than
> I can say for the DOJ and States Attorney Generals (where do you place the s?).
> I commend them for finally taking the indictment and prosecution of Gates/Microsoft
> seriously, and I do understand the tremendous complexity of such a task. I also can
> appreciate that the evidence was not easily compiled nor were the compelling
> witnesses lining up around the block to assist the seekers of justice. I realize that
> severe limitations exist in what could be done to reverse the damage inflicted by
> more than 15 years of unfettered greed. And, as I stated, I also can see that the
> current political climate is such that complete justice is not possible. I do agree
> that the Judge's decision made sense, given the circumstances. But mores the pity.
> 
> However many experts of whatever caliber were assigned to the task, the
> feebleness of the "solution" is still stunning. I cannot blame those who framed the plan,
> but I still see little meaning in the point that received so much attention - the "splitting"
> of Micro and Soft. The further directives to police future business practices of these evil
> twins are our only hope. And the "winning" of this case in the public arena, which
> is integral to the ultimate resurrection of true competition and innovation, may well
> require more time than the current ruling provides.
> I am not an economist, nor do I rate myself as either the best or the brightest in
> any relevant field. I did not read, much less understand, the full testimony entered
> in this court. Perhaps someone could explain to me how insisting that Micro and
> Soft "play nice" from now on is a better solution than insisting that Microsoft as an
> intact entity "play nice" from now on. But I don't need further evidence nor
> explanation to conclude that the legally allowable solutions to this problem are
> entirely inadequate to any approximation of justice.
> I have no better legally acceptable solution. But that none exist is my lament.
> 
> Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
> 
> University of Minnesota
> Neuroscience Department
> Room 6-145 Jackson Hall
> 321 Church St. S.E.
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> 
> (612) 624-2991 FAX 6-5009
> glivezey@lenti.med.umn.edu
> absent-minded_professor@bigfoot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info