>I was sitting out on my patio last night, having a couple of cold ones, and a thought occurred to me. This isn't terribly unusual, however, the normal course is for me to totally discard it the next day. This is the exception.
>
>I was considering the "remedy" that the DOJ is going to try to impose on Microsoft. For the sake of completeness here, let's review:
>
>The DOJ wants to break MS into two pieces. Simplisticly, it's Windows/IE in one part; and Visual Studio, Office and so on in another. Further they seek to keep these two entities separate, and unable to work with each other for ten years. Makes sense...
>
>NOT!
>
>This has got to be the stupidist idea I've ever heard and makes me believe that the DOJ and the 19 states don't have idea one as to what they're doing or the implications of it.
>
>Traditionally, software has been grouped into two types: Systems and Applications. In the latter you have your word processors, spreadsheets, and so on. In the former you have your operating systems and development tools. So what the DOJ seeks to, in essence is not only break MS into two pieces, but two pieces that are not even logically defined. The "Wisdom of Solomon" this ain't.
>
>Initially, I had the feeling that such a breakup would be bad for the consumer. Now I'm convinced of it. These people having zero idea what they're doing. The judge's middle name should be "Pinhead" and the rest of this group must be on life support because they're brain dead. Would someone please rent these people a clue?
>
>I do feel better, however, about this. First, because I've gotten it off my chest. Second, because, as flawed sometimes as the American judicial system can be, I can't see this decision not being over turned on appeal.
>
>Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong (but I doubt it).

George,

Hmm.. I think the notion behind the DOJ's intentions would be contained in the effects of splitting the two companies apart.

Let me 'splain as best as I can...

If the App side now wants to create a new software gizmo it must now refer to the API documentation that will now also be available to every other company wanting to write a new software gizmo. IOW, it's what is NOT there anymore. That is, the ability to have two APIs; one public and one (wink wink) behind the scenes.

From a purely abstract, theoretical, ivory tower, I've never developed software, my theories are mine and the rest of the world had better agree to them or I'll use my power and grind you to powder in the court system, and oh yeah, how come you didn't put more of your obscene wealth into our political party point of view I suppose there's something to this....

<g>

Thing is, there's still nothing to keep these folks from eating lunch with each other and (wink wink) talking about some new internal gadget. Ditch the email, print the API call, pass it on, use it and shred the paper. Or, publish the API and charge 1 billion dollars -equally to anyone who want it- for an opportuity to protect one's proprietary information. You get the drift...

Besides the folks who run the federal government aren't at all interested in having some upstart software company having more power than they are.

At the end of the day IMO this is about the federal government using it's power to protect it's monopoly on the strings of power.

In one pass they took over 100 BILLION dollars worth of power out of the marketplace. Thing is though is that this isn't going to help in the long run.

Best,

DD