What Should Be Done about Microsoft

Rather than break up Microsoft Corp., it would be better to break up Windows ''Does a breakup make sense?'' (Cover Story, Nov. 22). An operating system made up of several parts could promote competition by enabling replacement of the parts without requiring a competitor to develop an entire operating system.

Separating Windows into the ''plumbing''--handling hardware, scheduling programs, connecting to the Internet--and the application programming interface (API)--which provides the standard for software developers--could facilitate competition. Perhaps some users or PC manufacturers would prefer parts of the plumbing from Linux to reduce crashes. At the same time, the API should be placed in the public domain to assure complete disclosure. And it should be administered in a method similar to that by which requests for changes to Internet standards are now administered.

As for the Justice Dept., the claim that monetary penalties are not intended is disingenuous. Justice must be fully aware that once Microsoft formally is found to be a monopoly, lawyers would inflict just such damage on the company. If they really mean to promote competition without substantially damaging the company and its stockholders, of which I am one, then this situation will have to be prevented. Similarly, it would seem to be in Microsoft's interest to prevent this. A breakup of Windows could be in the best interests of the company and provide a better product to customers by promoting competition and innovation in the operating system.

Eldon Ziegler
Clarksville, Md.


You list a number of companies such as Sun Microsystems, Netscape Communications, and IBM, which may have cause to sue Microsoft. There are other corporate victims, as well.

Still, the largest group of companies, organizations, and individuals who have been harmed and ought to have a chance to recover damages are the end users of desktop operating systems, applications software, and browsers. This group has been on the receiving end of higher prices, lack of choice, forced (so-called) upgrades, and all the other monopolistic actions perpetrated by Microsoft that were so ably enumerated by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P. Jackson. When one considers the relative lack of technical and financial resources end users have, the impact of Microsoft's actions falls most heavily on this group, and the relief or damage awards should include this class.

Stanley Kritzik
Milwaukee, Wis.


Breaking up Microsoft horizontally would accomplish most of the anti-monopoly objectives and would not require government policing. Little supervision would be necessary to keep the Microsoft applications company from going into the operating-system business because no customers are likely to change to the applications company's new OS. If such changes were truly feasible, customers could currently switch to the Mac OS (arguably better than Windows).

Similarly, few customers would switch to a new ''office suite'' or word processor from the new OS company. There is too much training and knowledge already in place. Whatever happened to WordStar, WordPerfect, or many others? Marketplace forces would do the policing, and the two new firms would be forced to focus on their own thing without being able to use the other side of the business as a club.

William Schmidt
Evanston, Ill.


Repeat something often enough, and it becomes the conventional wisdom. William H. Gates III often repeats his plea for government indulgence so Microsoft's ''freedom to innovate'' would not be compromised.

Yet I find scarce instances of innovation. For example, Microsoft Word is an advanced release of innovations pioneered by Xerox Corp., Apple Computer Inc., and others. Excel is an extension of the VisiCalc innovation, and later the Lotus spreadsheet. Windows Explorer is a takeoff on Netscape Navigator. Scalable fonts were pioneered by Adobe. Disk compression was taken from Stac Inc. Microsoft was late even with the ''windows'' metaphor itself, following Xerox, Sun, and Apple. As far as operating systems go, Microsoft has successfully recruited top talent, resulting in the excellent product, Windows NT. However, DOS, Windows 3.X and 9X have only benefited the consumer by the virtual standardization that comes with almost universal usage.

I give credit to Microsoft for perfecting products, but not for innovation. If its top 30 people left, it is product improvement that would suffer, not innovation.

Frank Hassett
Merrimack, N.H.


The clear solution to the Microsoft situation is the ''horizontal'' breakup into operating system (OS), applications, and Net-products companies. The identified flaws in this plan are easily remedied. The leverage of the Windows OS consists of the inbred applications that Microsoft also develops, and its variable-pricing weapon. With the breakup, the applications advantage would diminish, and the government can simply force Microsoft to use a consistent pricing structure for all customers.

The controversy over what should be allowed into an operating system is unnecessary: An operating system is a monolithic entity that provides an environment for applications; any additional piece of software that adds functionality to this environment is by definition an application. Microsoft could bundle anything it wanted into its OS monolith, as long as that feature's only manifestation was within the OS. When additional functionality is sold as a separate item (e.g. Internet Explorer), any claim of it being an ''integral part'' of the OS is bogus. If a feature is an integral part of the OS, it cannot also be a separate product and it must be present in every version of that OS.

As long as this easily enforced criterion is met, there is no clear advantage to bundling additional ''embedded applications'' into the OS. Not only is this the best solution, it is the only workable solution for opening competition without punishing the consumer.

Cary Rhode
New York

The Net Makes Notaries More Necessary, Not Less

In ''Don't click on the dotted line just yet'' (Government, Nov. 8), author Howard Gleckman implies that in this age of digital signatures, the role of the notary public becomes obsolete. On the contrary, the advent of the computer has intensified rather than lessened the need for a trusted witness to ensure the identity of the digital ''signer.''

The apparent simplicity of the notaries' duties belies the role they play in commercial and legal activities. Today, it is common for business to be transacted among strangers, here and abroad, and the reliance on the notary to act as an impartial witness provides a level of reliability that cannot otherwise be provided. Already, the issue of identity assurance on the Internet is being raised when investments, financial transactions, and binding contractual agreements are finalized electronically.

As electronic documents become the norm, there will very likely be some form of signature security required, and rather than eliminating the role of notaries, that development will more likely alter the current skills, knowledge, and regulations by which they operate.

Deborah M. Thaw
Executive Director
National Notary Assn.
Chatsworth, Calif.

State Farm Plaintiffs Are Picking Their Own Pockets

''State Farm: What's happening to the good neighbor?'' (Legal Affairs, Nov. 8) failed to mention that the court applied Illinois law in this national class action, even though Massachusetts and Hawaii require the use of aftermarket parts to keep premiums low. The judge in this case levied $600 million in punitive damages to punish State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. for doing what some state governments required it to do.

Nor were the jurors in this case told that State Farm is a mutual insurance company, owned by its policyholders. Plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit are actually owners of the company. These plaintiffs will pay, through higher premiums, the cost of this judgment. In effect, they are picking their own pockets and making a handful of plaintiffs' personal injury lawyers millionaires for their trouble.

Sherman Joyce
President
American Tort Reform Assn.
Washington

Bombs Cannot Replace Soldiers

''How the Pentagon can be all that it can be'' (Industries, Nov. 1) is a jumble of contradictions. Author Stan Crock talks about how the Pentagon can rely increasingly on new technology, such as the unmanned aerial vehicles, which would conduct surveillance and drop bombs. Yet he endorses the B-2 bomber because its bombs cost $20,000 apiece vs. the $1 million Tomahawk.

Fiscally, a $20,000 bomb makes sense. A mission is accomplished when thousands of bombs are dropped on a target, and it is destroyed. Unfortunately, the neighborhood, innocent civilians, and the city around the target are also destroyed. In such a case, Americans would recoil in horror and demand the withdrawal of troops.

Alas, there would be no American troops to withdraw, because the military has suffered the deep cutbacks of the 1990s or because it was called upon to support operations elsewhere in the world. Troop cutbacks, lack of benefits, and increasing time away from families are forcing people out.

Michael S. Castellano
Jacksonville, N.C.

Community Values: What Took CEOs So Long?

I had to chuckle at ''In search of leadership'' (Management, Nov. 15)...duh. Chief executive officers of large organizations are finally figuring out that people want to be treated like human beings with contributions to make, rather than like machines. What took them so long? The title of the book, Lessons from the Top, is an oxymoron, isn't it?

There are a lot of us who left the bureaucracy of large organizations and started our own businesses so we could fully express ourselves in an environment we're passionate about, inspire others on our team, make quick decisions, and have a home life. Regardless of how long it has taken these CEOs to figure it out, I applaud their efforts at creating a community in their organizations rather than a fiefdom.

Aleta Pippin
La Jolla, Calif.

''Wall Street's frenzy over fees'' (Finance, Nov. 22, 1999)

''Wall Street's frenzy over fees'' (Finance, Nov. 22), mistakenly said that Charles Schwab & Co. does not employ brokers. Schwab in fact has over 6,500 brokers. But unlike traditional brokers, Schwab's brokers do not recommend stocks and do not maintain one-to-one relationships with clients. They provide service through a team structure.

''Charities--'tis better to give smart'' (Investor, Dec. 6, 1999)

Susan Garland should have been identified as the author of ''Charities--'tis better to give smart'' (Investor, Dec. 6).