My opinion might be the minority, but here it is. I spent a few minutes putting my angry thoughts on paper today. I'd like feedback, particularly on the % of market share in each of the categories I mention below. For the purpose of disclosure, I'm a large MSFT shareholder, my wife works at MSFT and we live in Seattle. Some might say I'm biased. Never the less, I'd like feed back.
Thanks, Dave
The following are facts that lead me to believe that there is a great injustice taking place. Yes, the occasional opinion is mixed in, but for the most part I believe the following list to consist of facts.
1. The last time the government used the legal system to break up a company was 1974. That was 26 years ago!
2. The case involved AT&T which was a clear monopoly due to the obvious need for one set of telephone wires run throughout the US. The country and the public needed telephones and obviously you are not going to run multiple sets of parallel wires to every city and every home. This was a clear cut monopoly that was a monopoly by nature and a monopoly by need. The US needed the cost efficiency of ONE SET OF WIRES and they needed to create the baby bells so that ONE COMPANY wouldn't control the telephone systems. This was an absolutely clear case of a monopoly and the need to do something about it.
3. The reason that there have been no other breakups in the past 26 years is because a true monopoly in today's business world is essentially unheard of and very difficult to prove. Justice would only be served if it was a CLEAR CASE of a monopoly. The DOJ tried to put the clamps on IBM, but dropped the case when the business and technology cycles PROVED that IBM did not have a monopoly. 26 years proves that it better be damn clear that it's a monopoly AND good for the consumer before breaking up a PUBLICALLY OWNED company is considered.
4. MSFT does NOT have a monopoly in the small device Operating System market. Their Windows CE has only a 60% (estimate) market share and is actually losing ground due to the popularity of the PALM hand held devices that run on the competitor's software. They do NOT have a monopoly in this arena.
5. MSFT does NOT have a monopoly in the server / mainframe Operating System market. Their Windows NT / 2000 has only a 40% (estimate) market share and while it is gaining ground due to the quality of their, it still has less than a majority of the market. They do NOT have a monopoly in this arena.
6. MSFT does NOT have a monopoly in the PC Operating System market. Their Windows '98 has only an 80% (estimate, when including Apple and Linux) market share and is actually LOSING GROUND due to the rapidly increasing popularity of Linux and the resurgence of Apple/Macintosh and their operating system. They do NOT have a monopoly in this arena. Not only are competitors that are taking market share from MSFT, but there are no firm barriers to entry. There is NO FUNDAMENTAL NEED for ONE SET OF WIRES. Having a high market share of a PARTICULAR type of operating system for a PARTICULAR type of computer DOES NOT MAKE A MONOPOLY. Every consumer has the right to buy Linux. Every consumer has the right to buy Apple.
7. Apple has a 100% market share of the operating systems market for Mac PCs and laptops. Why is that not a monopoly when a LOWER % of PC operating system market share is??????
8. MSFT developed DOS and it held a majority of the operating system market in its day. Technology changed and a new system (Windows) was developed. MSFT developed Windows, it was a good product and it took a majority of the market share. Guess what, technology is changing again. The PC is becoming significantly less of a market force. Internet based software is becoming more prevalent. Server based software and 'dumb' terminals are becoming more prevalent. Alternate operating systems for the remaining PC market are becoming more prevalent. The % of computer users that use PC type windows operating systems is shrinking. THIS IS NOT A MONOPOLY. IT JUST ISN'T.
MSFT was brought to trial by the DOJ because they objected to the browser (IE) being integrated into the operating system (Windows for the PC). They disagreed that this integration was good for the consumer and they have found MSFT guilty because of it.
Today I read that they want to break up MSFT and that one of the new companies would be an operating systems company. The article I read said that IE would be allowed to be integrated into the operating systems that this company sells. They, in the end, have agreed that the browser SHOULD be integrated, for the better of the consumer.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THE UTTER HYPOCRISY IN THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right now the 19 states that filed suit with the DOJ are manufacturing their remedy that clearly is now including a breakup of MSFT. Several states have said they don?t feel the remedy is strict enough. Settlement talks were stymied because of these same states. Do you know who these states are? They are the states that are home to MSFT?s competitors! They are the states that benefit from Sun Microsystem's business and AOL's business and Netscape's business. These are the people that are formatting the breakup of MSFT and have been given free roam to manufacture a plan that is as damaging to MSFT as they would like.
DOESN?T ANYONE ELSE CONSIDER THIS INSANE ?!?! WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT LETS THE COMPETITORS OF ONE COMPANY WRITE A PLAN TO DESTROY THE COMPANY AND THEN APPOINTS A JUDGE TO CARRY THROUGH WITH THEIR WISHES !!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ALLOWS A SUB MACHINE GUN TO BE AIMED DIRECTLY AT THE FACE OF A SIX YEAR OLD CHILD AT POINT BLANK RANGE????
YEP, THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME. THE GOOD OLD USA LED BY BILL CLINTON AND JANET RENO. |
