Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[amicus_curious]

"Robert Heller" <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:1tOdnfxtXMHI7ebUnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@posted.localnet...
> At Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:56:25 -0500 "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
>
> > "Rjack" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> > bumdnUH8Ov-23ebUnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com">news:bumdnUH8Ov-23ebUnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > >
> > > With the advent of the Obama administration, it is generally
> > > expected that the Justice Department and the FTC will become much
> > > more aggressive in antitrust enforcement matters.
> > >
> > > With Microsoft's OS share hovering around 90%,
> > >
> > > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
> > >
> > > how can Microsoft best subtly assist OSX and Linux in order to
> > > avert antitrust prosecutions under the new administration that will
> > > resemble those in the EU?
> > >
> > I think that the Obama administration is more likely to consider the 
> > adverse
> > effect of such silly prosecution on the overall economy.  Consider that
> > Microsoft is a large company that generates more than 60B worth of 
> > revenue
> > per year.  Why would the Obama administration try to hold them in check?
> > Why would they favor replacing that 60B company with a collection of open
> > sourcerers who rely on trade in kind and are adverse to such levels of
> > profits?  Would destroying Microsoft help the economy?  I don't think so 
> > and
> > I doubt that Obama's advisors are going to recommend that course of 
> > action.
>
> I don't think antitrust enforcement is going to 'destroy' Microsoft.  It
> *will* allow *other* companies to be less 'timid' about possible Linux
> offerings.  The antitrust enforcement will allow Dell, Gateway, or even
> Wal-mart to more openly offer Linux-based computers, generally at a
> lower cost, since they will be free of Microsoft's OEM licencing costs
> or the 'costs' caused by Microsoft's 'harassment' tactics.  This can
> only help the economy.  Yes, it might *slightly* hurt Microsoft.

There are several things wrong with your notion, I think.  The first being 
that Microsoft is somehow not "allowing" other companies to be "less timid" 
about possible Linux offerings.  It is a myth widely held amongst the Linux 
fans, I know, but there is absolutely nothing that Microsoft is doing to 
overtly prevent such a thing.  Indeed, there is a direct agreement with the 
US DOJ that nothing in that regard shall be done as part of the overall 
settlement of the USA vs Microsoft case in the late 1990s.  An oversight 
committee is in place to make sure.  Do you think they are asleep at the 
switch?  You probably do, but you are wrong.

Nor is the economy helped by lowering the cost of goods sold in commerce. 
That is just plain silly.  Look at the housing mess.  It is caused by a 
general decline in housing prices and the consequent reduction in 
homeowners' value.  It triggered the credit mess when the values sank so low 
that the money owed on property was more than the property value, sparking 
owners to abandon their loans and their lots.

> Microsoft is already hurting and is probably facing long term problems
> (with or without the JOD or FTC enforcement).  Just because Microsoft is
> large and just because the there are economic troubles is no reason for
> the JOD or FTC to just 'slack off'.  Both departments should be doing
> their jobs.
Microsoft's revenues were still up, although slightly, with the poor economy 
and the shortfall in profits is easily cured by cutting staff and regulating 
expenses.  There is a lot of fat to trim.  If you think that the job of the 
DOJ and FTC is to harass successful companies and are looking forward to 
Obama's wielding of the axe, you are sorely mistaken and will soon be 
disappointed.

> > Microsoft has absorbed the EU fines with ease since their prices in the 
> > EU
> > are significantly higher than elsewhere in the world.  They will stay in 
> > the
> > EU as long as it is profitable to do so and so far it has been.
>
> Right.  There is little the JOD or FTC can do to *really* hurt
> Microsoft anyway, no matter how agressive they enforce the law.  The
> JOD or FTC enforcing law is not about hurting Microsoft (since
> Microsoft has such deep pockets to begin with) as much as getting
> Microsoft off the backs of other parts of the hardware and software
> industry, so that these other parts (companies) can manage to survive
> the current hard times and eventually grow, be profitable, and hire
> people, which is how the current hard times will become good times.
> Seeking to avoid hurting Microsoft or otherwise treating Microsoft
> lightly is not going to do the economy any favors, since that *would*
> mean seriously hurting the rest of the IT industry, which does not need
> any additional 'hurt'.
You are incredibly naive.