Denys writes:
> The parallel between Microsoft and AT&T does not hold.  AT&T was/is a
> utility company.  You had absolutely no choice in the matter.

If you want to run a program that only runs under Windows, then you
have no more choice in whether or not you have to run Windows than
the telephone user did about using AT&T.

If I want to run application foo that requires Windows, then fine, I
have to buy the Windows Operating System from Microsoft.  I should not
however be forced to buy/use other "applications" from Microsoft as a
prerequisite to running Windows.

I think the most fair and likely ultimate outcome to all this (assuming
Microsoft keeps acting *completely* *clueless* as they have been recently)
is that a Judge will decide that because Microsoft has a monopoly on the
Windows Operating System that it is unfair for them to bundle anything
with the OS that is an application.  So Office, IE, etc. all have to be
acquired separately.  This isn't going to put Microsoft out of business.

Now, what is an application?  The simple, obvious, measure is whether or
not it is part of fundamental operating system functionality.  I would
think that if you pick up a textbook on Operating Systems that it will
describe what an operating system does as manage and control the hardware
so that applications can be run.  This means things like a kernel, IO
drivers, the GUI interface and runtime support that applications need,
etc.  It probably means a simple text editor like NOTEPAD needed to
edit config files, etc.  But it *does* *not* include the ability to
browse the world wide web, read and send email, etc.  These are all
*applications* and if Microsoft keeps on behaving the way that they
have, not only IE but a bunch of other stuff is going to get ripped
out of Windows by a Judge at some point.

Also I suspect that Microsoft will not be permitted to give away IE for
free anymore than foreign DRAM manufacturers are allowed to sell memory
in the US for less than it costs them to manufacture.

So, if all of this came to pass, Microsoft could still make and sell any
software that they want (they just have to talk you into buying Windows
*and* MSIE *and* the Exchange Client, etc.), but they would have to
succeed by producing better products than the competition rather than
simply not having any competition.  Microsoft has never had any difficulty
producing products people wanted to buy.  The consumers win because they
will get better products in an environment with competition.  Microsoft's
competitors win because now they have a chance to do it better than
Microsoft if they can.  Microsoft probably wins too in the long term as
they too will be forced to do a better job in order to compete which
will ultimately produce a stronger company.

Can anyone honestly argue that these would not be good things?

Or shall we let Microsoft do whatever they want, regardless of whether
it hurts everyone other than Microsoft's shareholders?  Clinton just
signed a bill to authorize a replacement for the Susan B. Anthony dollars
which the treasury department will run out of in a couple years (they're
still used in post office vending machines and a few other places).  The
new coin will have a different border and will be a different color (to
make it harder to confuse with a Quarter).  The original plan was to
phase out the paper dollar at the same time (as England now has only the
pound coin I believe) which would save the public some huge amount of
money.  Unfortunately this isn't going to happen, not because it wasn't
a good idea, but because the people who operate the printing presses and
the people who make the paper for the dollar bills would lose money and
so they successfully lobbied to force the rest of us to keep paying for
the paper dollars indefinitely.  (At least this is what I've heard.  I
haven't researched the story in depth to find out if this is an honest
summary or not)

G.