JL: This could be a real thorn in the side of MSFT. Let's say that a box mfrs. customer doesn't get satisfaction from the box mfr. as box mfr. says that consumer's problem is with MSFT. MSFT says no the problem should be handled by box mfr. Box mfr. then goes to DOJ (rightly or wrongly) and has MSFT dragged into court. I hope this language is not a part of the deal. JFD
John-
I have the opposite opinion. Such an agreement would be great for MSFT because it then could influence the box makers with a million small slights to punish them, but each one too small to make it worthwhile to go to the DOJ for relief. MSFT could structure the "standard" support as a minimal amount and then say that the "enhanced" support isn't something that they are denying a company that didn't load the software MSFT wants, but is something that they are giving to these other companies, and to the purchasers of their boxes.
Given the results of the 1995 consent decree, in which MSFT was able to pretty much circumvent the intentions of it (I'm not passing judgement on whether they should have, or whether the decree should have been made, just saying that its intention did not come into being.), I think that the DOJ has a real problem trying to make an agreement that will cover all the possible actions MSFT could take in the future. If the DOJ lawyers really understand the fluid nature of the future in this field (doubtful) they realize what a can of worms they have opened. This is especially true if they reject the break-up into OS and application companies option, which is the only logical proposal that they can make, although it is probably politically unacceptable. Any other remedy that they might try, such as three competing identical companies, or restrictions on marketing and advertising, would be harmful to the company and also to consumers, and just wouldn't work.
Sincerely,
Wm Chaney |
