Posted on 09/09/2001 5:59:22 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:46:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Justice Department has abandoned its plan to dismember the world's leading software maker. Still, pundits who thought last Thursday's announcement was a concession to Microsoft should have been watching the stock market.
The price of Microsoft stock dropped 3 percent -- even more than the dip in the overall averages. Investors never expected the government to renew its absurd demand to breakup the company. After all, the U.S. Court of Appeals had affirmed only one of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's three main holdings. And the appellate judges had even warned the government, in no uncertain terms, that the "drastically altered scope" of Microsoft's liability would not support a divestiture remedy.
(Excerpt) Read more at asp.washtimes.com ...
Yet another example of how the Republicans preach small government but are no different from the Democrats.
Microsoft has won, comprehensively. It would just be bad form for Gates and Ballmer to tap dance across the stage singing with glee.
IMO Clinton turned a bunch of Marxists loose on one of our economic crown jewels. I want to know who the remaining true believers are in the DoJ that are working this case.
Clinton didn't fire all the DOJ lawyers, just the US Attorneys (93 of them). Almost all of the lawyers at DOJ are career civil service employees, not political appointees.
Should the applications development divisions of MS have access to the OS APIs that other companies don't?
And set a new precedent in process. As is wont with liberals, Clinton has made US Attorney selection a matter a political consideration.
Sure, why not. It is, after all, Microsoft's PRIVATE PROPERTY. They were the ones that created an operating system (and its API) that consumers/corporations VOLUNTARILY chose as the O/S of choice. As far as I'm concerned, MS should be able to do whatever the hell it wants with its private property - including keeping their API proprietary. But MS isn't stupid like the gumbint. MS knows that they are the ones that benefit immensely from value-added applications produced by other vendors. Unlike gumbint, Microsoft has no coercive power over anyone. Market dominance? Yes. Coercive powers? No.
Yes. I think the US Attorney he really wanted to fire was the one in Little Rock, who was investigating the White Watter affair. The rest were fired at the same time to keep this from being so obvious.
When this case started there is no doubt in my mind that this was true. Now, I don't know. Bush's new Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Divison has obviously slammed on the brakes pretty hard, but sometimes these things take on a life of their own. This case has been tried and appealed, so the attorneys that worked on it (career though they be) have a lot of ego tied up in it. Also, antitrust attorneys generally tend to equate 'Big' with 'Bad' so they would want to continue.
I'd disagree. Wasn't this the essence of the 1995 consent decree, which ended the practice of effectively putting Windows on any machine sold through their licensing agreements? MS was able to gain a huge lead in marketshare and I don't think they've lost market share since then.
As far as I'm concerned, MS should be able to do whatever the hell it wants with its private property - including keeping their API proprietary.
If MS didn't have the monopoly in the consumer OS arena, I'd probably agree with you. Of course, I guess it comes down to the view of whether or not MS has a monopoly and what that means in this context.
But MS isn't stupid like the gumbint. MS knows that they are the ones that benefit immensely from value-added applications produced by other vendors.
How does this reconcile with their "embrace and extend" strategy? For instance, why would "Joe Average User" go out and buy CDR software, now that WXP will do that natively? Other examples could include browsers, system utilites, etc. While we, the consumers, seem to benefit at first, after time has gone by and the 3rd party developers have dropped out due to lack of market demand, you are left with only one provider. Who has won at that point? What benefits might have been developed, if the marketplace still had developers in the area that MS decided to build into the OS?
Unlike gumbint, Microsoft has no coercive power over anyone.
Really? 8-) With Hailstorm, product activation procedures, etc they seem to be on the road to changing some things around. Of course, the argument will be that you don't have to participate, but I don't think that is realistic, given the market share they have in so many different areas.
Heaven forfend that they should have to convince users to upgrade by offering a superior product instead of simply pulling the rug out from under customers who had purchased their earlier products in good faith.
It's called the aftermarket.
Your car comes with a radio.
How is it Alpine, Sony, Kenwood, Pioneer et al compete?
If someone makes a better CDR software package, they will be able to sell it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.