POST:
(this rotisserie is worth triple points)
What do you see as the key issues or
questions in the Microsoft antitrust case?
Feel free to amend a tirade for or against
either Microsoft or DOJ in addition to your
questions.
Just to say up front: I have not followed the Microsoft Antitrust
case and have limited
knowledge concerning all the issues and details. I did, however, do
the readings for
today's H20 post and will use that as the sum all of my knowledge.
I believe that the judgment is insufficient in making Microsoft no longer have a monopoly.
There is one important question I want to raise: What will be the
economical and technological
affects of breaking up the monopoly in one sweep of the judicial pen? Is
it prudent to do it in one swoop or should a
well-defined "step approach" be taken to ensure that the computer
industry does not
crash? This is an important question to raise, which I don't see being
addressed in our
readings.
This question I just raised though, does in no way legitimize Microsoft's
monopoly. There
need to be tough measures taken against Microsoft to deny it the fruits of
its illegal
practices and to ensure that it can no longer illegaly oust its competition.
Unfortunately
I can not offer any more specifics on how to do this, although freeing up
all API's seems
like a good start.
But we also must recognize that Microsoft is a well-entrenched monopoly
and the
computer industry is vital to America's economy and way of life. To
break up the
monopoly in one judicial action may possibly be the most effective we to
open the industry up
to competition, but it might not be the most prudent in terms of securing
the computer
industry as a whole from crashing. I feel we should be aware of this
when discussing
the solutions to the Microsoft antitrust case.
RESPONSE:
(this rotisserie is worth triple points)
What do you see as the key issues or
questions in the Microsoft antitrust case?
Feel free to amend a tirade for or against
either Microsoft or DOJ in addition to your
questions.
Microsoft has not always been knows as the monopoly that it is today. They claim they have such a strong market share because their products are better, cheaper, faster, etc... And behind all this, the creative genius of Bill Gates, who dropped out of harvard to write software. But there is one problem, Bill Gates doesn't write software, and hasn't in quite some time. The only product he has actually produced was a BASIC Compiler for the Altair 8800. He bought DOS from a company called Seattle Computer Products before turning around and liscening it out to IBM for their first PCs. Microsoft has made it their common practice to just buy out other companies As seen on the Simpson's episode "Das Bus" : "Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, Compuglobalhypermeganet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out." -- Bill Gates. The funny thing about this quote is that its true. One wouldn't expect Computer Nerds to be such bullies, but Bill Gates is in fact one of the biggest. If Bill Gates can't buy out your company, he will destroy it, as seen with Netscape and Microsoft's, deemed by the DOJ, unfair buisness practices.
Now that the Internet Browser Wars are over, and the DOJ's has ruled in favor of Microsoft, Microsoft has still not completley won their Holy-Crusade of the internet. As seen in the New York Time's Article "Microsoft's New Set of Hurdles", Linux poses a new threat to them, And I believe that this was a major point in the DOJ's case for not breaking up Microsoft. They saw that Linux was a viable Operating System, and poses a real threat to Microsoft's hold on the internet. After all, how can one beat free? I think that the Linux Community should be rejoicing at this result, not saddened by it. They should take it as a compliment. What this is saying to them is that Linux has a shot to take Microsoft down from its pedistal, fair and square.
Mr. Roy Williams presents a very nice tirade revealing his thoughts
about
Microsoft.
In the first paragraph, I get the impression that Roy thinks a monopoly
is a company that buys other companies. I don't think Roy really
thinks
this way, so perhaps the first paragraph can be reworded a bit to make
this clear to the reader.
I find it hard to swallow that "now that the Internet Browser Wars
are over"
the Justice Department is ignoring Microsoft's illegal practices and
saying,
"Well, Linux could pose a threat to Microsoft, so we won't do
anything."
This seems like a too simplistic impression of the situation. That's like
saying "oh, well the Bosnian War is over, so Milosovich shouldn't be
charged for war crimes." Bill Gates should be charged with his
business-crimes
against competitors.