| BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE : NOVEMBER 22, 1999 ISSUE | ||||||||
| ||||||||
 | ||||||||
| COVER STORY -- THE MICROSOFT RULING
No Easy Fixes No single remedy adequately addresses the issues raised by the Finding of Facts STRUCTURAL REMEDIES HORIZONTAL BREAKUP Breaking Microsoft into three companies--one with operating systems, another with applications software, and a third with the Microsoft Internet businesses--would stop Microsoft from using its Windows monopoly as leverage in the other two markets. But it falls short of the key goal of any remedy: To create competition in the market for operating systems. VERTICAL BREAKUP This is the ''Baby Bills'' scenario. Microsoft would be divided in three with each company getting a third of the assets in every line of business. This approach would improve competition, but it would be a logistical nightmare. Worse, it could fracture the Windows standard. Critics fear that this would ultimately increase prices for consumers. A WINDOWS AUCTION By getting a major computer company such as Sun Microsystems or IBM to buy a license to Windows, this would create a new competitor in the operating systems market. But it is unlikely that any company would want to take on the challenge, which would require huge investments in product upgrades to keep up with Microsoft. Also, it could splinter Windows. BEHAVIORAL REMEDY OPEN SOURCE LICENSING Microsoft would be forced to publish the source code to Windows, though other companies could not use it to create clones. Software companies that create applications that run on Windows could get a boost: The code would put them on an equal footing with Microsoft's own applications writers. A problem: Pirates might make illegal copies of Windows. CLOSE SUPERVISION Rather than changing the way Microsoft is structured or how it does business, the government would establish rules of behavior aimed at curbing the company's abusive conduct. This would cover contracts with other companies and pricing, among other things. Critics say there are two problems with this approach: First, it already failed. Microsoft signed a consent decree in 1991 that forbade it from engaging in certain anticompetitive practices. Also, a behavioral approach could make the government the permanent overseer of Microsoft. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BACK TO TOP |
|  |
 | |
RELATED ITEMS Does a Breakup Make Sense? COVER IMAGE: Microsoft: Does a Breakup Make Sense? TABLE: No Easy Fixes Who Can Sue Commentary: The Burden of Being a Misunderstood Monopolist So What's in the Cards for Microsoft? TABLE: Reshuffling the Deck Commentary: How Intel Played It Right Commentary: The Lessons of the AT&T Breakup INTERACT E-Mail to Business Week Online | |||
