There is a very strong case for a break up into at least two companies: Not to punish Microsoft but to make them more profitable by forcing them to write application software for other non-Microsoft systems, and forcing the system side of the company to provide more help to software writers that also want their software on other platforms. Because it is likely that Microsoft would be more profitable if broken up, that is a question for the shareholders to decide, not the government. While I believe Microsoft violated the antitrust laws, acceding to the government's wishes to break up the company would be too good for Microsoft. It is enough to order them to cease and desist from certain anti competitive practices. The civil suits which follow will take care of the rest.
As to an appeal, it would be VERY UNLIKELY that an appellate court would dispute the lower court's findings of fact. There may be both procedural or substantive issues of law that can be appealed. Any appeal would set aside the lower court rulings, but would compound the civil damages, particularly if the government prevailed on appeal. The chances that a Republican dominated court of appeals would reverse the lower court are rather low. Not only is Judge Jackson a Republican appointee, the judge who tried to facilitate an out of court settlement is considered one of the more conservative experts on antitrust. In short, Microsoft can try to delay the inevitable, but in the end, the outcome is probably inevitable.
If Microsoft acts in the best interest of its shareholders, it will break itself into two or three pieces, and quickly. If it did, I would be in there buying stock. |
