My Microsoft Remedy

Microsoft has been found guilty, even in the Court of Appeals, of abusing its Windows monopoly. I say, “let the punishment fit the crime.”

We’ve seen all sorts of remedies proposed for the Microsoft case: splitting up Microsoft into multiple, equal companies, splitting Internet Explorer into a separate company, separating Windows from Office (which was Judge Jackson’s choice). Microsoft is guilty of using their monopoly power in Windows to establish otherwise separate products. They have used their position to squeeze other competitors out of business.

My vote would be to form three new companies each of which has rights to the Windows source code and can build a business around Windows. I don’t think the intention is to force a change of ownership of Microsoft, so current Microsoft shareholders would have equal share of these new companies.

What would that get us?

Wouldn’t that just give us three monopolies? Well, technically, it’s an oligopoly. But, by making this change, we go from one company that controls the market and dictates terms to three companies that together have to set the standards. Beyond that Office is not part of any of those businesses. Microsoft would no longer be able to leverage Windows in order to push their applications.

A structural remedy is a big deal. What other choice is there, when the monopolist in question doesn’t change their behavior no matter how many times the government wins?

The lower court is working on remedies again now, and I hope that this is one that they consider.