Denys writes:

>It
>was also alleged that M$ Office folks had access to undocumented interfaces
to
>Windows that gave them an unfair advantage.  Duh!  I should think any
company
>that produces an OS and applications that run on said OS would be in the
same
>situation.

Maybe Allegro can address that situation regarding compilers;
does HP use undocumented routines in their compilers that cause
SPLash! to be at a disadvantage?  (On second thought, never mind.)


>What many people were hoping for was the DOOOJ to recommend the source of
>Windows OS be given to several Baby Bills and to then turn them loose to
>develop their own OS.  These same people neglected to explain why this
would be
>desirable in any way.  (Just what we needed dozens of versions of Windows!)

I'll agree with that; a handful of versions is plenty.


>In the meantime, the current administration and
>its DOOOJ have not really explained how this action has helped the
consumers so
>far and how the consumers have been harmed in the past.

Regarding how consumers have been harmed in the past, perhaps you'll
accept HP's view of that.  From the previously-given URL

   < http://www.theregister.co.uk/990121-000007.html >

   [HP R&D manager] John Romano was writing to Microsoft business manager
   Dave Wright in 1997, and was seriously ballistic on the subject of
   Microsoft's "edicts", which he claimed had had the net effect of
seriously
   damaging HP's PC business, forcing up returns and tech support calls.
   ...
   Hewlett-Packard had basically been attempting to differentiate its PCs
   by adding software which made them easier to set up and use, but as this
   interfered with the "Windows Experience", it had been forced to dump all
   of this under the contract for the OSR2 version of Windows 95. Romano is
   therefore saying that Microsoft's demands for control of the desktop were
   making his PCs less usable, and produced the data to back this up.

Thus, there was clear harm both to consumers and to HP.
And this is just one example.


> For an administration
> so driven by polls and focus groups, it is interesting to note there is
> no consumer movement or uproar driving this issue.

You've not heard complaints of Windows being crash-prone or difficult
to use?  There's no law against this in and of itself, but Microsoft's
wielding of monopoly power contributes to the situation.


> On the other hand there are
> lots of stock, 401K and Mutual Funds holders who have been hurt by these
> actions in the last few months.  M$ was not the only company whose stock
> went down.

So it's okay for a company to break the law, as long as lots of people
profit from the company.

--Glenn