Hi George,

SNIP
>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!
>
The way I remember it, IE is *not* to be on the OS side.

>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.
>
I'm not so sure that we adequately understand either the law or the complete evidence. I've just gotta believe that the decision-makers didn't make the call and set the proposed penalty lightly.

>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.
>
Well I could easily put "development tools" on the applications side, though I'd be more inclined to put them into a completely separate category.
Restricting themselves to only two pieces I feel that OS' (only) in one part and all else in the other is a good split. Personally I would have guessed more splitting myself.

>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?
>
Firstly, there is serious doubt as to whether this will ever come to pass (I'm sure the lawyers for MS are fully reviewing all of the tactics employed by IBM 20+ years ago) and even if it does it looks to be a few years away anyway.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that the consumer will 'suffer' if it does happen. Sure, things will change and some freebies may well disappear. It could be that we're already suffering today even beyond what the DOJ suspects. For instance, you know of my distaste for the quality of VFP documentation. It's clear that MS' documentation overall is generally of the same calibre. Now they have a MS Press entity that publishes much of the missing details (plus some, of course). Is this strategy *really* done to keep the base product's cost down or might it be to foster yet another profit centre?
Or is using all the MS 'freebies' *really* good for your corporation when they may in fact lock you into the MS world? Godd for MS for sure, but good for 'the consumer'?
Finally, I have read sufficient over the years to believe that MS *does* include code in its OS' to further its *own* application products and that this includes everything from performance to features/useability. I really have to believe that we've missed out on significant innovation by *other* parties because of this.

One more thing - MS' recent commercials about stifling innovation. It seems to be commonly felt that MS hardly innovates *anything* but rather buys/licenses things and then embellishes them. So I truly have trouble believing that any split will stifle their "innovation-quotient".

Cheers,

Jim N


>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).