Microsoft splitup - may officialy happen today!

[nilknarf]

Wasn't the case originally about forcing OEM's to install IE with Windows?

This case is like the Energizer Bunny,

It just keeps going and going and going...

I'm not going to hold my breath for the end because it'll take several more years at least before it's all over. And by then no one will remember what it was all about and it'll probably be a moot point anyways.

[chipbgt]

Its going down right now on the news.

[ScaryBinary]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of dumb things. Breaking up the company won't solve anything.

If they're a bunch of slimy crooks like the Justice Dept. thinks they are, then I'm sure the two companies will form a "secret" joint effort and they'll continue to go about their normal business, scratching each others' backs.

If they're a great group of people excited about creating wonderful technology, then it's going to be a shame to see them beaten down because of their success. Even so, they're a smart group of individuals that will certainly find the loopholes, and business will continue as normal.....

Like many others have questioned, how does this solve anything, especially the whole IE fiasco? Now we have two companies that will (supposedly) "badger" others into using their software....it'll be a tag-team match!

Go figure. Doesn't the Gov't have anything better to do?

[jad1097]

They will just appeal it for the next 5 or 10 years. So they will not be broken up any time soon regardless of what decision is made today.

[Warthog]

You can take a poll here: http://www.cnn.com/

More people favor not splitting Microsoft.

(scroll down a little)

Warthog

[Mntsnow]

1. Should Microsoft be split?
total responses to this question: 23990

No 63.22%
Yes 33.60%
Not sure 3.18%


2. Is Microsoft stock a "buy"?
total responses to this question: 23919

Yes 61.74%
No 20.53%
Not sure 17.73%


3. Given advancements in the software industry over the last two years, is the government's case against Microsoft still relevant?
total responses to this question: 23899

No 58.94%
Yes 36.04%
Not sure 5.02%


Looks like I voted right along with the majority on this one http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Mntsnow

[hd581]

jad####'s right, you can keep your eye on the news but don't hold your breath. Might want to wait and see what happens. Who knows? They might split the whole thing up into 10 pieces. Or they might just take bribes and leave it alone.

[Warthog]

At least the start of it. They say they'll probably split it into two companies: OS and Applications. IE (the cause of all this) will be DIVIDED betweent the two companies. Why? That doesn't really make sense to me. There will be unspecified restrictions for 3 years to make some more competition.

I don't understand how this will affect the consumer market that much. I'll continue using MS Word unless something MUCH better comes along. They say that it holds 94% of the word processor market share. Their executives will have to choose which company to go to. Where will Gates go?

Wasn't the initial trouble with IE??? How does this solve that problem? I thought they'd make MS take it out of Windows. I didn't see that they said that. So, the OS company can still put IE with Windows?!? Now we are back to square one!

Here is what I read: http://cnnfn.com/2000/04/28/companies/microsoft/

Warthog

[OuTpaTienT]

Maybe I heard this wrong, but it's my understanding they are taking submissions from the "victimized" companies about what punishment should be dealt to MS.

It's like...huh? What kinda of BS is that?

If we let the victims of crime decide the punishment for the perp, then our jails would be empty...and all the criminals would be dead.

[Gene C.]

the whole story: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

and than some: http://www.lycos.com/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=71544&fs=docid&cat=zdnet&mtemp=zdnet

[This message has been edited by Gene C. (edited 04-29-2000).]

[Gene C.]

update: http://news.lycos.com/headlines/Technology/Internet/article.asp?docid=RTNET-MICROSOFT-LEADALL&date=20000430
By this time we'll have a new windows version of everything anyway. this just gives uncle bill more time to plan ahead.

I hope it takes longer myself. with windows still going to be shipped with explorer. what is the use. dosen't help out netscape one bit here.

but, the Gov. can't fix themselves. so they have to have something to try and fix.

[Gene C.]

May 1, 2000 6:00 AM PT

WASHINGTON -- New evidence : http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2558403,00.html
they just can't seem to stop digging up dirt.

[Apostle 83]

From what I understand, the company can't be split until a year after all appeals have been exhausted. This means we're looking at 6-11 years... its things like this that make me resent the government.

[Warthog]

wow....6 to 11 years...that's a long time. I guess we won't we seeing them split up anytime soon. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Wartho

[Gene C.]

Not until after some of you finish college. he he. and by that time the two will have hidden plans so big. they will need to have two of them to handle all of the outflow.

and the other software and hardware makers will have drivers for win 2k. in time to be behind again.

I think this stuff is a big joke. for look at all the money the Gov. will spend. while uncle bills makes it. http://www.lycos.com/cgi-bin/pursuit?query=73157&fs=docid&cat=zdnet&mtemp=zdnet

[LJE2]

Most of you are probably to young to remember when Bell Telephone had a monopoly on the phone service, both long distance and local service, the Federal Gov stepped in and split them up, with more competition it resulted in cheaper and better phone service for the general public. Microsoft uses it's massive influence to force small companies out of business, thus eliminating the competition. If the Gov steps in and splits up Microsoft, I believe the same thing that happened to Bell Telephone would happen to Microsoft, with more competition Microsoft would have to put out a better product (less buggy) and at a better price. I'm in favor of splitting up Microsoft.

[This message has been edited by LJE2 (edited 05-01-2000).]

[Amarok]

LJE2 I belive it was AT&T that they split up into all the so called baby bells.

As for this with microsoft - if they are going to do this to them then go after every other company with the same vengance IE WallMart for driving out every little mom and pop store around. The big Pharmacy chains for killing all the locally owned Pharmacies. The major oil companies for killing all the small gas stations. These companies are doing the same thing. Just my 2 cents.

Amarok

[LJE2]

No it was Bell Telephone (hence, now the baby bells), but the name of the company is irrelevant, they had a monopoly and there was no one else to use if you wanted phone service in most areas of the USA, so you had to pay what they decided to charge and as for service again when they decided to get around to it, this is similar to what Microsoft does, they tell these system builders you either buy our Office Suite, or Include our Browser and no one elses browser or else we won't sell you our operating system (or else they tell they will sell them their operating system but at a much higher cost), and what other choice does this builder have .I realize there is Linux and Os2 and BeOs and a few other obscure operating systems, but the general public is not going to buy a machine with these operating systems. This is illegal, as for going after the Wall Marts and other companies that put the Mom and Pop companies out of business, they are doing nothing illegal, they come into an area and offer lower prices and people begin to shop there instead of the Mom and Pop stores and they go out of business, this is sad but not illegal. That is the nature of competition, with Microsoft there is no competition. If there was, we would get a better product at a lower price.

[nilknarf]

Okay,

AT&T/Bell Telephone was a monopoly by law. And the quality of phone service did not go up when it was split. Nor did the rates go down. BTW, if anyone has been paying attention recently, the 'baby bells' are getting back together.

And the next "monopoly" they'll try to go after is Intel, not Wal-Mart (which is hardly a monopoly) or the oil companies.

MS will never be split, no matter how hard the DOJ tries. Remember the IBM lawsuit. It lasted for 13 years, simply because IBM had the money to do it. MS certainly has more money than IBM.

Splitting MS will result in chaos for the computer industry. MS has a huge braintrust of software engineers. They have set many of the modern standards for computing. And, whether we you agree or not, they have some of the best software products on the market.

I'll stop now before I spend too much time on the subject.

[LJE2]

These sound like the same excuses that MA Bell came up with years ago, what do you mean phone service didn't get cheaper, have you seen the prices for long distance lately?

[wyvrn]

Swbell has purchased Pacbell, Ameritech, and SNET in the last few years. This is one mutha of a company. Uswest is trying to do the same thing, albeit with less success. However, now you can choose who you want to pay for your local phone service, even if only one company owns the lines. So it is not quite the same situation now as before. Walmart has not done anything wrong, they just gave the public what it wanted and are doing a smashing job (their service sucks bad though). Competition for Walmart includes in part Target, Big K, Fazios, Best Buy, Office depot, and some others I cannot think of right this sec. Intel is not a monopoly as long as AMD keeps eating market share, but that is another thread altogether. Now Exxon and Mobile merger (1 with 2) might be close to a monopoly, but they still have many other small ones.

Microsoft was pretty much the closest thing to a Monopoly these days, at least as far as desktop pc's are concerned, and that is why they were attacked. I agree that MS did a lot of good things for computers and software, but a monopoly never maximizes innovation and product quality over the long haul. PERIOD. Ask your economics professors if you don't want to take my word for it.

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 05-03-2000).]

[Nathan]

I'm old enough to remember. Where I'm working right now, the career telephone workers privately admit many things about that breakup. It did create many jobs, but it did really screw up many parts of the telephone system. They tell me the government still regulates AT&T in some areas so the competition can catch up. Of my sources, one has 34 years experience and another has some 25 plus a few others.

I don't want to get into an arguement about it. AT&T was a monopoly controlled by law with regards to service and pricing. Certain people wanted it deregulated to make room for competition to bring the prices down. Microsofts "monopoly" was made by those of us who purchased computers and/or just the operating system. There are other choices out there. But the problem is the programers haven't "written" the software for it yet. Why? Probably not enough money to be made at it yet, I don't know.

It seems to me that if we really want an alternative operating system, then maybe we should go out and "buy" the software that's written for the alternative OS, right? That way they can make a living and continue to write programs for it.

[bhess]

If I remember right, you used to have to rent the phone from bell? Now you can buy a phone for a few dollars.

[LJE2]

I never said in my posts that I thought Microsoft never did anything good for the PC industry and the general public, and yes if you dislike Microsoft or Windows there are other alternatives, all I am saying Is that Microsoft has gotten to where they are today in some part using Illegal business practices, and they have used their influence Illegally to stifle the competition. The PC industry would not fall apart if they split up Microsoft, (this is just rhetoric from Bill Gates, trying to keep his monopoly together), I believe that if split up, the general public would benefit, and Bill Gates, Microsoft and the PC industry would not perish.