Okay... onto my answer...

First off, to ponder this question, one needs to refer to the conclusions of law the court is making. This can be found at:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ms-conclusions.html


FWIW, it appears the court has a pretty good case, at least as far as violations of the Sherman Act are concerned. In my last discussion with Erik Moore, he, like many, make the error of thinkning that the burden of proof rests on the assertion that MS *is* a monopoly. The issue is not whether MS is/is not a monopoly. That point can be debated. The issue is whether MS is guilty of employing monoplistic power. If you are big enough fish in the pond, while in theory you do not have a true monopoly, you still can exert a good deal of monoplistic power. I suppose like many things, the argument is about substance over form. This is why I cautioned Erik from running to dictionary.com and throwing the strict definiton of monopoly in may face..< s >.
The bigger questions are - Does or has MS engaged in anti-competitive practices?

All roads lead through the browser. It is interesting because the browser - to me is pretty insignficant. I suppose my conlclusions are based more on technoligical conclusions as opposed to elementary business conclusions. i.e., the lay people look at this argument/issue very differently. That by no means makes their POV invalid. Again, I hark back to my discussion with Erik about how tech folks are the only folks that can give an educated opinon. They say perception is 100% reality. It would appear the Gov't has made a good case here by illustrating it in pure business terms and how it relates to the Sherman Act. i.e., it is not an argument about technology..

For these and many other reasons, it is a complicated case..

Onto the remedies..

About the break-up -- I am divded on this. If you go by the rule of law and precedent, a break-up would not be out of the question. I contend that the only way this could be successful is if MS would be instrumental in devising the plan - ala ATT. I don't beleive that a break-up would be as disasterous as MS makes it out to be. Again, this is only the first cut. This episode has a long way to go.


As for MS suggested remedies -- My first impression was that much of it are things that should have been done anyway. It really gets back to the age old argument of what responsibility businesses really have to the environment in which they operate. Clearly, there is a gap roughly the size of the Grand Canyon between MS counter-propsal and the Court's suggested remedy proposal.


We shall see....







>JVP,
>
>I was hoping you'd join this thread, knowing your interest in the legal aspects. May I ask what you think of the "rememdy"?