The Three Microsofts nytimes.com
And one for you, Gerald. As you've noted before, your Microsoft split proposal has picked up a high profile advocate. Here, it's explained by a certain author I've cited often on the Microsoft issue. I especially like the third paragraph.
Robert Bork, once upon a time too conservative to get onto the Supreme Court, now has a modest proposal for helping the world cope with Microsoft: split the company into triplets -- three equal, cloned Microsofts. It's just an idea, he says. After all, the company hasn't even been found guilty. And it does sound scary: three new companies, each starting fresh with its own copy of the Windows source code, and each with its own copy of the gene for Determination to Vanquish All Competitors and Control the World.
He's on to something. There would be complications, for sure. The three new Microsofts couldn't really be identical. For example, only one of them (call it "Huey") could have Bill Gates himself, the chief executive once famous for holding a tactical and strategic road map of the entire computer industry inside his head. Dewey and Louie would have to go scrounging for C.E.O.'s of their own.
Then again, maybe that's not so important; after all, in his testimony for the ongoing antitrust case, Gates has sworn that he didn't actually know much about his company's key business decisions. ("Q: Did you ever try to find that out? A: I read something that was on our Web site about four days ago"; "Q: Are you aware of an agreement that Intuit entered into with Microsoft? A: I know there was some kind of an agreement. I wasn't part of negotiating it, nor do I know what was in it.")
That most important of Microsoft trade secrets, Bill Gates' premature senility, now known to all. Hasn't made much difference, as Gleick notes. As a remedy, sounds good to me.
Cheers, Dan. |
