We should not criticise the US government for failing to pursue the anti-monopoly actions against Microsoft (except in so far as it is influenced by its ruthless need to maintain US dominance of the global computer system).
We should instead demand that the compromise requires Microsoft to cooperate with the growing collectivist tendencies of the Net. And also, rather than having to spend a lot of private time dispersing its giant superprofits through charity, this task is taking over by a commission, preferably an international one.
After all, if Microsoft is out to control 90% of the world's computers (see below) what could ensure the safety of its future revenue stream than that it would not be subject to arbitrary flanking attack from say Europe, if there were a demand that it should divert 5% of its income on a continuing basis to develop a telecommunications structure for Africa.
How about global protestors forcing Microsoft into talks to come up with some "constructive" proposals?
Chris Burford
London
From NYT September 6, 2001
>The U.S. Justice Department said Thursday it was no longer seeking the
>break-up of Microsoft Corp and would strive to find a remedy in the
>three-year old case "as quickly as possible."
>
>In a statement that pushed the technology's giant's shares higher, the
>department said it would also not pursue an unresolved claim that the
>company illegally tied its Internet Explorer browser to its Windows
>operating system.
>
>......
>
>If technical and design merit were the only criteria for judging an
>operating system, the release of Windows XP would be cause for jubilation.
>Unfortunately, the inability to separate Microsoft's products from its
>business practices tarnishes what could have been an exhilarating release.
>
>For example, this is the first Windows version that's copy-protected. If
>you try to install your copy onto a second computer - say, your laptop -
>you'll find yourself locked out of the second machine after 30 days. News
>of this feature alone has driven many enraged PC owners to consider moving
>to the Macintosh, Linux or Amish country.
>
>..........
>
>
>There are privacy questions, too; at every turn, Windows XP tries to send
>information about you back to the mother ship. During installation, you're
>first asked if you're ready to "activate" your copy of XP (send
>information about your PC's configuration to Microsoft), and then if you'd
>like to register it (send your address and phone number to Microsoft). If
>you try to use the Windows Messenger program, you're told you must sign up
>for a Passport (send your e-mail address, city and ZIP code to Microsoft).
>
>Microsoft swears that it will use your information only to serve you
>better, but it's easy to be alarmed by the notion that a single company's
>database may soon list 90 percent of the world's computers