Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (22680)	2/15/1999 9:20:00 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Respond to of 24154

Sanctions Under Debate in Microsoft Case washingtonpost.com

To: Bearded One who wrote (22680)	2/15/1999 4:26:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

What do you think of the possibility raised that Microsoft may be forced to license the source code to its products? My personal view, and a speculative one at that, is that, for Microsoft, this case has got to be about principles -- upholding the principles which, though they may appear to lead to odious results in individual cases, operate over the long run to maintain the integrity of our free market economy. As I see it, there are really only three remedies options consistent with upholding free market principles: 1. Do nothing. This is obviously the Microsoft preferred choice. It's the equivalent of saying, "The cure, any cure, is worse than the disease." They would have a hard time arguing it themselves in court; coming from them, it wouldn't even pass the laugh test. But, a third party amicus might be able to get away with it, and might even be able to use some of the evidence from their "defense," such as some of the testimony of their economist, Richard "What was I thinking when I said that?" Smalenese. Such testimony obviously won't get them off the hook entirely. On the contrary. But, if played right, it might affect the remedy. 2. Break it up. By this, I mean the Bork/McNealy proposal to break Microsoft into three undifferentiated companies. As I have said before, my perception, based on the media and elsewhere, is that Microsoft is unalterably opposed to this. This is the equivalent of a nuclear strike. Boies could use this as a very effective stick (and maybe he is doing just that), but if he ever were actually to launch such a strike, I think it would be hard to make it stick because of the nature of the government's case. You don't break up natural monopolies. 3. Release the Windows code: The licensing proposals discussed in that Washington Post article are one way to do it. Another would be for Microsoft to make Windows Open Source Software. This latter solution dovetails in an interesting way with their "W2K" problem: the task of creating 40 million lines of code and making it work together and with thousands of applications, is simply too big for them, or any other single firm, to handle alone. Making Windows open would kill two birds with one stone: they would reduce barriers to entry into the Windows PC market and probably end any reason to continue with the antitrust case, and they would, over the long run, solve their code problem. Furthermore, given that Microsoft seems to consider maintaining their existing corporate structure to be paramount over all else, I'll stick my neck out and speculate that I think they might even find this approach acceptable if done right, and certainly better than being broken up. And, like breaking up the company, this approach is consistent with the principle of minimizing interference with the market which both the government and Microsoft, for different reasons obviously, seem to favor. Obviously, I am speaking strictly for myself, and my personal speculation is certainly not supported by anything Microsoft itself has said.