Wilke and Gomes on ideas for remedies

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Here are a few excerpts from John Wilke and Lee Gomes's WJS/AP
article regarding suggestions for remedies in the MS case.


Via AP
^By JOHN R. WILKE^and^LEE GOMES
^The Wall Street Journal=

   [snip]
   
   Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Novell Inc., doesn't like his
rival's business practices, but doesn't like the idea of an
AT&T-style breakup of Microsoft, either.

   [snip]

   Instead, he says, Microsoft should be forced to publish all of
the specifications for the inner workings of its software, known as
applications programming interface, or API. He also thinks
Microsoft should be required to have consistent published prices
and terms for its software _ in contrast to the secret individual
deals it now makes with companies that preload Windows on PCs.


   Sam Miller says Microsoft should indeed split itself up. ``I'm
not an advocate of the government's imposing a breakup,'' says Mr.
Miller, who would have been the government's lead counsel had an
earlier Microsoft antitrust investigation gone to trial. (That case
was settled in 1995.) ``But if Bill Gates decides to do it, that
would be a different matter.''

     [snip]

   
   Barney Frank, the veteran Democratic congressman from
Massachusetts and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, says
the penalty need not be so Draconian.
   ``Breaking them up would be a great mistake, and unduly
disruptive,'' he says. ``The remedy ought to be tied to what they
did. They ought to be required to untie the Internet browser, for
one thing, and then have other restrictions placed on their
conduct, such as not being allowed to use different pricing to
punish or reward PC makers _ something that the judge clearly
highlighted in his ruling.''

   
   Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, cautions that any settlement
limiting Microsoft's conduct risks being subverted by the company.
   ``It's a company with a long history of mischief and perfidy, so
a remedy is going to have to be self-enforcing, and the only way to
do that is with a breakup,'' he says. Windows must be separated
from Microsoft's Office and other applications, he adds, and the
company should be forced to offer versions of Office for other
operating systems, like Linux. A third unit would have Internet
services.
   ``This would completely change the incentives,'' he says. ``The
Windows company wouldn't have the incentive to sabotage other
software makers.''
   
   Richard Stallman, an advocate of free software for most of the
1990s, helped lay the groundwork for the current popularity of the
free Linux operating system.
   He suggests making all of Microsoft's proprietary protocols and
specifications public, and says that Microsoft should be restricted
in its use of patent litigation.
   Last year, leaked internal Microsoft documents described the
growing threat of Linux, and said that Microsoft could use
proprietary protocols and patent litigation to fight Linux. The
best way to make sure that free software is able to compete with
Microsoft, says Mr. Stallman, ``is to remove the weapons the
company has talked about using against us.''
   
   James Barksdale . . . 
    says. ``A structural remedy is most workable.''
   He sees three lesser Microsofts _ an operating system company, a
maker of applications programs and a services company. Most other
solutions would require more continuing government oversight of
Microsoft, he argues.

   [snip]
   
   Howard Trienens, AT&T's lead counsel in its antitrust trial and
an attorney for Microsoft on patent issues, has a simple remedy.
``My model isn't AT&T but IBM,'' he says. ``Drop the case, because
the market is moving faster than the court.'' The antitrust case
against International Business Machines Corp. was dropped in 1982,
the same day the AT&T case was settled.

  [snip]

-- 
James Love / Director, Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org / love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 202.387.8030 / fax 202.234.5176