Microsoft Told to Unbundle Windows

[CaptainRAVE]

The U.S. states still pursuing an antitrust lawsuit against software giant Microsoft have demanded that Microsoft offer a cheaper version of their Windows operating systems, without any software bundled with it.

 

The states still pursuing the suit believe that the settlement agreement hammered out between Microsoft and the federal government is too soft, and has too many loopholes. They are hoping to rectify that with a tougher agreement.

 

The nine states involved are hearing opinions from various parties about what should be done to ensure Microsoft doesn't compete unfairly, and expect to propose an alternative remedy to the courts in March.

[StormHammer]

There is probably more chance of everyone on these forums being simultaneously struck by lightning and surviving the experience.

 

Besides, Microsoft is continuing with it's plans to take over the world by introducing it's mind disruption device into every home...the X-Box.

 

On a more serious note, I really don't see what these people can hope to achieve. This has been going on for so long, and the goal posts keep changing by the time they make a decision. I mean, this all started so long ago...Windows 95 wasn't it? Now we've got Windows XP...and nothing has really changed. By the time they've all got their arguments sorted out, we'll have the next generation of Windows, and whatever other software they bring out...or they'll come up with something totally different and slip the net altogether.

 

I guess that either sounds defeatist or realistic...I'm certainly short of optimism regarding this issue.

[Vagabond]

Keep hope alive, my friend. Although I hate the state in which I live - Kansas - due to its overwhelming conservative slant, it happens to be one of the states that is still hanging on in the battle against Microsoft. Though the hull is breached, taking on water, and listing portside, the fight carries on. And perhaps in the end its not the outcome that matters, but that we made a stand. That we fought the fight not because we thought we could win, but because it was right. Thus even in defeat, we triumph in purpose.

[matt--]

That's deep Vag, you should be a speech writer.

BTW, which states are "rebelling" against the MS empire?

[StormHammer]

Vag...your words are a tonic for the soul. Thanks man.

[Mafia_Jabba]

It should have a select options for certain programs to install or deinstall....

 

Otherwise get the stick out your ass...if you are worried about "Bundling" get a different one! PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Jesus christ!

[Vagabond]

Hey, matt-windu and StormHammer, thanks. I knew if anyone would appreciate my words, you would Stormy. Hopefully my writings are at least as poetically profound as MJ's

[Mafia_Jabba]

ahahahaha that great thanks man!

[Agen]

VagaBond for president?

[Kurgan]

When I get a computer, I'd rather install only the software I actually want and plan to use, without all that OEM crap, works for me.

 

Of course you can already do this if you buy the parts online for example...

 

Kurgan

[Guest Wilhuf]

But I would like to know how Joe Public really benefits from state-sponsored torpedoings of Microsoft.

 

Do we really expect to get good operating systems for less money? Improved software that ships with open source code? More competition from other software developers? Cheaper hardware? Improved standards for inter-operating system functionality?

 

What is the payoff to Joe Public for spending $millions of his money in legal pursuit of the Microsoft Juggernaut?

 

Or was our appointed President's administration right in abandoning the Microsoft target, and letting states settle the problem?

 

The more I think about the case against Microsoft, the more I think of Kenn Starr and his expensive investigations' failure to produce tangible results that were truly of benefit to the public.

[Vagabond]

For me, I see Microsoft as a monopoly, and the court has recognized this fact as well. Being a monopoly, one is subject to governmental controls and restrictions due to the limited or insignificant competition, and the unavailablity of viable customer choice.

 

Every company strives for that 100% market-share goal, but once you reach the summit, there comes a heavy price for being the only game in town. That price, I submit, has not only not begun to be paid by Microsoft, but rather ignored as Microsoft attempts to keep pressing the advantage with its monopoly position.

 

My ideal solution, which will never happen, is for Microsoft to first be sliced into three separate business units; Operating System, Software, and Development Tools, and then each of those separate business units to be diced into three distinct competitors. This way each business unit would have three other entities to compete against.

 

But back to reality and the state lawsuits. My understanding is that the nine remaining states are pushing for a version of Windows XP that is stripped of most of the additional software that comes bundled with it, and that Windows XP support Java, in addition to some other requests, which elude me at this time. This sounds reasonable, to me. Further, I would add to the states' list of remedies, that since Microsoft is a recognized monopoly, they must get government approval for their pricing, similar to how utilities must get approval for price changes in many states.

[Guest Wilhuf]

But with each state filing separate suits, do we run in to the possibility that we will end up with separate state pricing and OS versions? Couldn't Microsoft lobby as hard as possible to get separate lenient settlements for each state?

 

For instance, would I have to pay more for WindowsXP, Maryland Crabshell Edition™ compared to WindowsXP, Kansas Wheatshaft Edition™?

[Vagabond]

Since Microsoft is at the very least a US monopoly, and likely a world monopoly, I would suggest that pricing be set at the national level. In the case of the European Union, then perhaps that would be the entity Microsoft would deal with when setting prices there.