Lawyer John Warden persuasively argued that Microsoft was victimized by jealous competitors who drew the Justice Department into an unholy antitrust alliance after failing to beat Bill Gates and Co. in the marketplace. Microsoft, a tenacious but law-abiding competitor, has brought innovation and lower prices, and harmed customers not at all, he claimed. But that doesn't mean they need the government, in the guise of antitrust litigation, to act as some kind of hall monitor. Common sense, the available data, internal Microsoft e-mails and competitors' contemporaneous notes all argue persuasively against Microsoft's defenses in every major element of the case. He shouldn't break up Microsoft, as some Microsoft critics have argued.
Integration is the future of the high-technology business.
Breaking up Ma Bill would only slow innovation. Jackson should assess a sizable, though not punitive, financial penalty. He should restrict Microsoft's ability to engage in anticompetitive conduct by reviewing any future mergers or alliances. And he should directly address the conduct that got Microsoft in trouble by forcing it to include at least one competing browser, along with its own, in every Windows program it sells. It's a tough remedy, one that will hurt Microsoft without killing it.