Re: no Java in XP Windows

Chris,


I said:

> > Ok, now you're talking about a lot more than simply breaking the company
> up.
> > You're talking about some specific court imposed restrictions on how
they
> do
> > business; namely:
> >
> > 1) Bundling for marketing purposes.
> > 2) Opening up the API.

You replied:
>
> I don't think there is any reason to have court restrictions in these
areas.


Well how do you enforce it without a court order?  MS has made it clear that
they aren't voluntarily going to do this.

>
> Interestingly, this is the exact same example used by Bill Gates to attack
> the split up. The TCP/IP stack.
>

Pure coincidence. I've never heard BG speak on the subject.

> Now, maybe Windows shouldn't have the TCP/IP stack built in. I agree this
is
> a tough call. But let me ask you, do you suppose this is free? Do you
> suppose the cost for developing and improving that stack is taken from the
> dividend checks of the stockholders?

Of course it's not free. Whether it be MS, or IBM, we either pay software
subscription, or upgrade charges for those new features. But that's beside
the point. How MS, or any company, chooses to finance it's product
development is between that company and it's shareholders, and has little to
do with the issue of what they should be allowed to sell.

Your position, somewhat oversimplified, is that a company should not be
allowed to improve it's product if a competitive product already exists on
the marketplace.

As a consumer, I don't see how forcing me to buy individual pieces of a
solution (TCP/IP stack, disk compression, backup etc.), and trying to make
them all work together is a benefit. In fact, it goes against some of the
very principles that this community (AS/400) values so highly. Aren't we
regularily preaching the virtues of a fully integrated system?

> Drawing the line for that is difficult. But, with the amount of illegal
> manipulation of the market that has gone on over the last two decades, it
> does seem that some remedy is in order.

Remedy, or retribution? I've yet to hear a plausible argument that explains
how breaking up the company would provide any kind of a remedy.


> One of the reasons the break up is a
> preferable solution is that it will require far less government oversite
> than if there is no breakup.

Less than what? What are the alternatives?


> I am not sure why we would be naive to believe this. What exactly would be
> MS OS Co.'s incentive to provide one application vendor with better
support
> than other vendors?

Because when you split them apart, MS WinCo remains a monopoly in their
market, and MS OfficeCo also remains a monopoly. The best way to ensure that
both companies remain monopolies, is to work cooperatively.  Anybody ever
hear the term "Wintel"?

>
> The point of the split up is to reach two seperate companies. If they
become
> (over time) two actually separate companies, then we will have an actual
> competing marketplace and room for new companies to enter and compete in
the
> marketplace.
>

Nope. As, I've already mentioned, you'll just have two monopolies instead of
one.


> Not so. First, sure, Bill G. owns 20%, but he would probably be prohibited
> from chairing the board at both companies.

Probably? Was that part of Jackson's original ruling, or wasn't it? Aside
from which, board member or not, 20% ownership of a company that size
carries a lot of influence.

> Second, if the company ever made
> decisions based on the "overall empire" rather than any one company, they
> would be open to lawsuits from their stockholders. So, if a guy like me
> owned a hundred or so shares of MS OS Co., and they seemed to be giving
> preferential treatment to MS App. Co., then they would be cheating me as a
> stockholder. I can then sue the board and the officers.

On what basis? I know you Yank's are a rather litigious bunch, but I think
that even you'd need better grounds than "I think they should be doing more
business with Lotus!". Besides which, happy shareholders are the one's that
are making money, and nothing makes money like a monopoly.

> I think this is pretty far off base, considering that the two judges that
> Microsoft has blown out so far were the two most likely to be favorable to
> them. Judge Sporkin was the judge they preferred most. He decided that the
> original consent decree wasn't strong enough and that more should be done
to
> stop Microsoft's illegal practices. Immediately after he made this
statement
> and refused to sign the consent decree, Bill Gates met in Washington with
> Bill Clinton, and then with Al Gore. The next week Sporkin was removed
from
> the case and the most conservative and Microsoft friendly justice possible
> was placed on the case. That judge is Thomas Jackson, the one just removed
> for his statements about what criminals Microsoft is.

Yes, I may very well be off base, but it seems to me like the general U.S.
consensus is that MS will receive a smoother ride with Bush in the
Whitehouse. Certainly, both Charles James, and John Ashcroft, have gone on
record with comments deemed unfavourable to continued pursuit of MS.

> The bottom line is that any judge who looks into this case at depth is
> deeply offended by the practices of Microsoft and saying that this
> administration is the problem ignores the behavior of the last
> administration.

I don't know anything about the behaviour of the last administration. But I
think the dogged pursuit of this case by the former Justice Department
officials speaks loudly. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that things
have certainly cooled off now that Bush is in the Oval Office.

> The idea of a breakup isn't that it will suddenly make all the world okay.
> It is that it opens the door to a competitive marketplace. It will take
> time, but the other two choices are to let things keep going like this
(and
> I don't like that as a consumer) or to have the feds regulate Microsoft
(and
> I don't like that as a consumer).

I still don't see how a breakup would do that. I agree that you folks need
to do something about MS, but splitting the company into OS & Apps divisions
seems like little more than a token judicial victory. It allows the lawyers
& politicians to go home with their head's held high, but doesn't relieve us
from MS' stranglehold in the slightest.


John Taylor


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---