What purpose will breaking up Microsoft serve? To protect consumers from, well, what? From using an antiquated piece of software called Windows? To protect the world from being able to communicate through a shared piece of software? Most of the personal computer world uses Windows and can thus easily communicate.
Will it be a lesson to corporate pirates against snapping up smaller companies? No. Think America Online buying Time-Warner.
Will it have a huge impact on the way we buy software?
Probably not.
Unlike the break-up of AT&T, where suddenly instead of one phone company we had several choices, a breakup of Microsoft promises to give us ... two Microsofts? What are the chances that Bill Gates is honestly going to give up control of his entire empire? Emperors have a notorious history of fighting to the death to maintain their own.
The government charges Microsoft with stifling innovation. The computer industry doesn't seem to be suffering from a lack of creativity.
In an industry that reinvents itself every six months, Microsoft is one innovative step away from being yesterday's news. Quite simply, Gates & Co. are being punished for being too successful.
Yes, they are guilty of (insert crimes here). Intimidating smaller companies with the sheer magnitude of the name Microsoft is probably a case that can be handled outside of a company break up.
The definition of monopoly reads "exclusive control of of a commodity or service in a given market, or control that makes possible the fixing of prices and the virtual elimination of free competition."
Sure, it's hard these days to find a computer not loaded with Microsoft products. Don't like that? Ever hear of a little company called Macintosh? Download the Linux or Unix operating systems from the Internet. Use Netscape Navigator. The Nevada Appeal office runs almost completely without a Microsoft product. Being Microsoft free is possible. Consumers have choices.
Our verdict on Microsoft: guilty of arrogance, not a monopoly.
