An Unintrusive Fix

With Microsoft virtually certain to lose its antitrust trial with the US government, now is the time to start thinking about what actions should be taken. Unfortunately, some of these suggestions just won't work, and others may unfairly inhibit Microsoft's ability to compete in the market.

First of all, what has Microsoft done wrong? That might be a useful question to ask ourselves before we attempt to remedy the situation. It's important to separate these actions into two categories: things that they don't have a right to do, and things that weren't very nice of them to do. Of course, where one person draws the line is different from where someone else draws the line, so all I can do is tell you where I draw the line. I think most of us would agree, however, that Microsoft's crime is not having a monopoly, but the way that it uses it.

I have no doubt that Microsoft's licensing agreements for Windows NT, its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows, and countless other similar activities have no purpose but to eliminate competition and choice in the marketplace and have nothing to do with the benefit of the consumer. However, they're Microsoft's products, not ours, so in my opinion Microsoft should be allowed to do those things. If they want to write their operating system so it doesn't work with Netscape, fine. If they want to design Internet Explorer to send every bit of personal information on your computer directly to Bill Gates, then that's fine too. The important thing is that Microsoft make very clear what a user is getting into when they buy a product. Microsoft has no right to lie about what that product will do. If Microsoft was perfectly honest, how many people would actually buy their products knowing what they were getting into? So I propose that Microsoft be compelled to make crystal clear exactly how they've mutilated their products to work -- or not work -- in certain situations.

Now the question becomes, "how do we enforce this?" Microsoft will always try to find loopholes in the law, and they won't be caught most of the time. So how can we make sure that it's not worth Microsoft's while to implement these "features" in their products? One way is to make sure that the risks outweigh the benefits. So any company should be able to take Microsoft to court on these charges, and if Microsoft is found guilty, they should be forced to pay, not 1, not 3, but 10 times the damages. But, you ask, "if we are charging 10 times damages, isn't that an incentive for companies to take Microsoft to court just for the hell of it?" This is a point worth mentioning, so I propose that the plaintiff itself only receive the actual value of the damages, but that 9 times it be paid to the United States.

What to do about past infringements? I suggest the same thing, but with one difference. So as not to be enforcing retroactive punishment, previous infringements of these laws should simply be paid at triple damages, which is the law already.

Disagree? - Check out other ideas and submit your own!

You are Visitor No:

since March 9, 1999.