What to Do About Microsoft? Antitrust Experts Offer Opinions nytimes.com
Welcome to the thread, RTev. Here's the day's NYT article, I assume you've seen it already, but I like to keep the people here notified. Before looking at a couple of the suggested remedies, such as they are, a word or two about your post. It's true, as you say, that the ongoing action has changed the landscape, even without a resolution. Is that enough? The true friends of Bill would respond that it's already too much, of course. I'd say that the problem is, if you let Microsoft off with a wiggle-room consent decree settlement ala the '95 decree, who's to say it doesn't start all over again? That's hardly an original opinion on my part, as will be seen below.
Anyway, from the article, we get, first of all, an amusing quote from our man Bill:
"The only thing that we know for sure would be bad for consumers is anything that blocked us from being able to innovate Windows, or anything that made it so that when people buy Windows they don't know what is in it. Beyond that we'll be as pragmatic as we can."
As usual, the eternal company line that bundling software = "innovation", in addition to the echo of the dread "integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience" line. Personally, I think want would benefit consumers most is if Microsoft would just fix Windows, but never mind.
Next, a hawkish view, from one William Baer, former director, Bureau of Compliance, Federal Trade Commission
"If you start with a monopoly company that has unlawfully limited competition," he said, "the goal of any remedy has to be more than telling them, 'Go out and sin no more.' That approach would allow the monopolist to maintain the benefits it has gained from illegal use of its monopoly power.
"What you want to do is move the market back in the direction it would have gone but for the unlawful conduct. So the remedy has to be something structural."
While he was not willing to suggest a specific solution, he did say: "It would be something like licensing their source code, spinning off part of the company. Whatever it is, it should be self-executing.
"But my key point is this: What kind of lesson does a monopolist take if he is told, 'Please don't do this anymore,' and is allowed to keep all of his ill-gotten gains? If the judge found that Microsoft obtained its position illegally, then Microsoft should have to pay for it.
"A structural remedy also sends a signal to any possible future monopolists that they don't want to go down this road."
On the other hand, from the "conduct remedies" school, we have Robert Hall, economist, Stanford University, a fairly conservative economist I think.
Of his proposed remedy, he says: "I can't claim that it will solve every problem. But the real issue is being sure that the remedy does more good than harm. So I think it needs to be conservative and clean."
Hall said he "admired the quality of the economic arguments in the judge's findings." And one good way to address them, he added, would be to prohibit Microsoft from "conditioning the sale of Windows licenses to computer manufacturers on anything other than the manufacturers' ability to pay for the license and to respect Microsoft's intellectual property."
Evidence presented during the trial showed that Microsoft threatened to withhold Windows from IBM and Compaq when those two companies engaged in other actions Microsoft did not like.
"A remarkably large number of problems shown in the suit would be resolved with this," he said.
Hall said he would also force Microsoft to revise its contracts to prevent predatory or exclusionary dealings with other companies. That would ensure that Microsoft did not condition its dealings with other companies on their willingness to support other Microsoft products or ventures, he said.
Hall acknowledged that his proposed remedies are "modest." But, he added, "I think this whole system is gong to work -- and work without strangling Microsoft."
Long time observers of the "air supply" operation who hold with the eye-for-an-eye school of justice would say that strangling Microsoft is a reasonable and appropriate remedy, but nevermind. In this article, 3 out of 5 came down for structural remedies, but I'm dubious myself. A proposal like Hall's may be the best that can be done, the problem with that going in is summarized concisely by a previous player in the effort, one Robert Litan, director of economic studies, Brookings Institution :
While deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's antitrust division, Litan negotiated the consent decree with Microsoft that resulted from the department's previous antitrust investigation of the company, in 1995. The present case began when the Justice Department charged that Microsoft had violated that 1995 agreement.
Litan now says he believes another conduct remedy of the sort agreed to in 1995 "just invites more lawyering."
And with Bill apparently continuing to act as his own attorney here, where is that going to get us? Anyway, I try to avoid speculating too much these days, we'll see if anything comes up before the "findings of law".
Cheers, Dan. |
