From: furballs@sequent.com (Paul Penrod)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Date: 21 Dec 92 07:48:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Dec21.074803.1363
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <BzLMIH.II3@csulb.edu> sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.215347.1614@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:
>>In article <BzKsJ2.Bwp@csulb.edu>, sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>|>   Now, now, try and calm down a little bit. I doubt that anything that
>>|> the FTC is contemplating will 'destroy' Microsoft.
>>
>>One of the options that the FTC is considering is breaking Microsoft up into
>>several companies.  That's "destruction" in my book.
>
>  Hardly. The current shareholder, Billy included, will most likely get
>shares in each subsidiary and there may be a holding company. What it will
>accomplish is that the developers and management in each company will not
>find it so natural and convenient to share information and coordination
>that ought - in the context of anti-trust law - to be more generally
>available and less concentrated in the hands of a single entity.
>
>>
>>|> AT best, it will
>>|> just require them to try an play an little fair(er) with the other children.
>>
>>I _still_ don't understand what isn't "fair" about what Microsoft is doing.
>>Why shouldn't Microsoft let its application programmers talk to its OS
>>programmers?  What is wrong with giving their own programmers an edge?
>
>   Because it gives them undue power over the software market as a whole
>and acts detrimentally to the market for applications software in that
>Microsoft leverages its unique and restricted access to information about
>it's operating environments to gain an advantage in a separate market. Now
>you may not see these as separate markets but that is for the FTC to decide.
>
>>
>>|> >How Bill Gates runs his business is nobody's business but Bill Gates's.
>>|> 
>>|>   Sorry to disappoint you, but this issue was settle quite a long time
>>|> ago when the robber barons ran roughshod over the economy and used
>>|> market power in anti-ethical, non-competitive ways.
>>
>>I was wondering when someone was going to trot out a "robber baron" strawman.
>>Stick to the issue at hand.
>
>
>  It's not a straw man; and no one is claiming that BG is the modern,
>techno-weenie version of them. The point was that most of anti-trust
>theory and law was developed during the time of the so-called 'robber
>barons' as a consequence of the effect that their business and
>financial practices had upon the markets and the nation as a whole.
>As a consequence, it was decided that certain practices and structures
>were inherently unfair and detrimental to the nations economic health
>and well-being and a result of anti-competitiveness. Now you may not
>understand it or agree with it but most of it is a settled issue. The
>application to individual cases, however, is a matter for the Federal
>regulatory agencies and the courts, where this one will also likely
>be fought out. Or have they started settling these matters on usenet
>now ?
>
>
>

First opinion I've read that hits the nail on the head.

The FTC is not some big mean monster that many are making it seem.
The only difference in this case is that a few highly visible
figures in the computing community are using this opportunity to
preach the religion of their products and cry foul in the media.
Media attention notwithstanding, the FTC is looking into the
marketing agreements the Microsoft has with hardware vendors and
how that affects competition. The one unusual circumstance here is
that the FTC has filed to take action against Microsoft, based upon
those agreements, rather than give them the opportunity to
dismantle the offending problem quietly on their own. As I
understand it, this is the third time in it's history that this has
occurred.

IF this provides a setback to Microsoft, it will be a temporary
one. Bill Gates to his credit pours something like 27+% of the
revenues back into the company for R&D and Product Development. No
matter what the FTC does to Microsoft, that kind of cash infusion
will bring about good products, because they can afford to hire top
talent and spend the time and effort to get it right.

Also, if they do split up Microsoft, the share holders will be
adequately compensated for the changes to take place. Bill Gates
wins, not matter what happens. Besides, the man likes a challenge.

This also give IBM and opportunity to press their advantage with
OS/2 in the market place. If these agreements are dismantled, and
the vendors have more latitude as to what OS they bundle with their
system, then IBM can press it's advantage with the vendors. IBM
does has a long track record with corporate sales that they well
polished on. Where they fall down, is consumer sales; but they're
learning.

JMHO...


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
            Bureaucracy: noun, plural - Bureaucracies.
         The process of turning energy into solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy