WI: Microsoft broken up?

Okay this is a question that's been on my mind a while since I first studied Cartel Law. Tried to see if this has been asked before but I couldn't find any threads on the topic.

Microsoft (like a lot of major tech companies) has had something of a sordid past, routinely employing less than ethical marketing and business techniques in order to eliminate competition.

In 1998, Microsoft was taken to court for illegally removing competition and abusing it's position in the market. The casedragged on for two years before the courts decided that Microsoft was guilty of nuemrous breaches including monoplization and attempted monopolization in the case of the United States v Microsoft. The judge ordered that the company be split in two seperate entities, one to produce the operating systems and the other to produce software.

This decsion was ultiamtely overturned on appeal, however what would have been the consequences of this decison had it stuck? What if the appeal had been rejected? How would the tech industry look with one of it's major players split up? How might this split look? What are the legal ramifications for other companies? What would the effect on other companies like Apple be? I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts on the effects would be. :)
 

Asami

Banned
The fall of Microsoft sends shockwaves through the industry, and likely cripples PC development for decades...

Since this predicates the birth of the Xbox; the Xbox never emerges and Sony and Nintendo continue as the main "combatants" of the console wars. Apple may eventually throw their stake in this lot after the release of Halo. This will actually probably have a positive net effect on Apple and gaming, as developers will not have an incentive to port entirely to Windows and Windows alone.

Why will they flock to Mac? Apple will basically be the only major operating system developer out there; they're still recovering from the aftermath of the "Interregnum" after Jobs' departure in '85; but this comes after Microsoft had already invested significantly into Apple. Apple very well may be the highest bidder for the Windows operating system; but other major figures may pursue it; such as IBM.

The problem now arises of the IBM PC clone and her descendants. Windows' new owner will radically change the environment it's set in; and this may very well cause significant damage to PC-compatibles. Apple benefits long-term in all senses. Apple may even revive the clone market for Macs, which would supplant PC without a centralized corporation like Microsoft enshrining dominion.

Linux and other POSIX OSes might benefit as well.

The "Baby Bills" (like Baby Bells) will still exist; but their powers will be significantly reduced as they will universally lack the power and drive of the Microsoft Corporation; it took nearly twenty years for the Baby Bells to build back the power they had before being broken up. >_>
 
The fall of Microsoft sends shockwaves through the industry, and likely cripples PC development for decades...

What fall? They're just splitting up application development from OS development into two new public companies (say MS/Apps and MS/OS), not auctioning off the pieces to the highest bidder. I agree that Macs gain marketshare (but Steve Jobs would never re-allow the cloning program) but that's a side story, as is Mac gaming because again Jobs not a fan but perhaps Halo's halo effect and Windows weakening gets him to do some gaming support.

Split up MS is either a pair of still large incompetent organizations (as MS was in the early 2000s, outside of maybe Xbox and a few things) or perhaps they reform and become productive members of Silicon Valley society. I agree with no Xbox however, but perhaps MS/Apps becomes EA-size publisher (and still winds up with Bungie? Be funny, at least). MS/Apps would be free to port to Linux and Solaris and the like, gain some sales there and probably strengthen those OSes against Windows.

Broadly MS/OS comes off pretty fine, perhaps the shake-up helps avoid Longhorn mess of OTL. Perhaps MS/OS ports Windows to other CPUs (again), if Linux and Mac gain, which would be crazy butterflies regarding Intel and the CPU industry.

But no drastic shake-up if not least because no one company could probably afford to buy MS/OS given how valuable Windows was by 1998. MS/Apps maybe, way smaller, but Office still a major business in 1998 as well.
 

Driftless

Donor
There was plenty of industry discussion in the 90's debating the relative benefit of the standardization that the Microsoft enforced on the PC world vs the stifling of true inovations that it's near monopoly also enforced. Obviously, great innovation did occur, but usually on Microsoft's terms and to their primary benefit.
 
(1) the computer industry is further along. (for example, microtransactions for content producers),

(2) as a butterfly, maybe Bill and Melinda don't start their foundation which addresses poverty and neglected diseases,

(3) with this example of a successful breakup, maybe other judge(s) feel confident, in the wake of Enron and WorldCom in '01 and '02, into breaking public accounting firms into audit only and everything else.
 
There was plenty of industry discussion in the 90's debating the relative benefit of the standardization that the Microsoft enforced on the PC world vs the stifling of true inovations that it's near monopoly also enforced. Obviously, great innovation did occur, but usually on Microsoft's terms and to their primary benefit.

It benefited application software developers, particularly in the corporate sector. They only had to develop software for one operating system and corporate IT managers didnt have to factor in rival standards and rival application software when building out their platforms. IT was enormously helpful to scaling out IT infrastructure.

It also helped with overall PC adoption in the 1990s. Most adults learned how to use a computer from work. They then purchased a PC at home and bought WINTEL computers because that's what they learned at work. More systems creates more confusion and slower adoption.
 
Microsoft probably does better as a company. Some of the peripheral technologies the company bought or developed probably arent buried by the Windows developers as was the case with mobile OS. Smaller, focused companies generally perform better than bloated conglomerates, which is what Microsoft has become.
 
(3) with this example of a successful breakup, maybe other judge(s) feel confident, in the wake of Enron and WorldCom in '01 and '02, into breaking public accounting firms into audit only and everything else.

The legal precedent set I think would be really interesting, I'd be keen to hear from any lawyers on forum how they think this might affect other major cases.
 
It benefited application software developers, particularly in the corporate sector. They only had to develop software for one operating system and corporate IT managers didnt have to factor in rival standards and rival application software when building out their platforms. IT was enormously helpful to scaling out IT infrastructure.

It also helped with overall PC adoption in the 1990s. Most adults learned how to use a computer from work. They then purchased a PC at home and bought WINTEL computers because that's what they learned at work. More systems creates more confusion and slower adoption.


Agreed, operating systems, development and office software are all probably natural monopolies. Corporations prefer dealing with one standard system than a half dozen. They much prefer everyone knows one standard operating systems and development software really well rather than have people know a number of them fairly well.
 
Apple will basically be the only major operating system developer out there; they're still recovering from the aftermath of the "Interregnum" after Jobs' departure in '85; but this comes after Microsoft had already invested significantly into Apple. Apple very well may be the highest bidder for the Windows operating system; but other major figures may pursue it; such as IBM.

I can't see Apple pursuing Windows. At this point, they're well into the development of OS X, itself the second or third attempt at a new Mac OS. They're not going to ditch that to make a play for Windows, and I especially doubt Jobs would even want Windows.
 
considering a bunch of questionable ways apple tried to push competitors out, i could imagine that after a while apple will get the same treatment
 
It benefited application software developers, particularly in the corporate sector. They only had to develop software for one operating system and corporate IT managers didnt have to factor in rival standards and rival application software when building out their platforms. IT was enormously helpful to scaling out IT infrastructure.

It also helped with overall PC adoption in the 1990s. Most adults learned how to use a computer from work. They then purchased a PC at home and bought WINTEL computers because that's what they learned at work. More systems creates more confusion and slower adoption.

I'd never thought of that, having an industry standard does encourage proliferation
 
I'd never thought of that, having an industry standard does encourage proliferation

Also encourages mediocrity, slow development, anti-consumer practices, and the like just like other monopolies. Look what Apple accomplished with OS X in the time it took Windows Longhorn/Vista to get out the door. Likewise look at the Amiga and Macintosh in 1986-90 vs Windows systems until 1995 or so. Consumers would have been much happier using computers if Amiga & Mac had won everything outside of big corporations.

As regards application software the Macintosh non-business non-game market was generally much healthier, more innovative, and more financially successful then the Windows application market for small to medium developers. This expanded by a factor of 10 for OS X as the Mac software market surged and the Windows software market continued its long slow decline until--a little bit anyway--Windows 8/10. Only large corporations and big developers benefited from Windows (and even then, mostly in an illusorily sense), everyone else was hurt by it.

There are always trade-offs :).

The legal precedent set I think would be really interesting, I'd be keen to hear from any lawyers on forum how they think this might affect other major cases.

Depends on the President in office and the times. Precedent is nice and all, but there's plenty of precedent for breaking up corporations. American politicians especially in the 1980s-90s are deeply scared of offending/upsetting/taxing corporations so I could easily see a swing the other way: "we broke up Microsoft BECAUSE it was so extreme a monopoly, we'd never do that again".

yes, much healthier :rolleyes:
like how apple tried to push othe rmanufacturers of GUI machines out of the market by using lawyers and shady claims (their lawsuits against Commodore (about the amiga) and Atari (about the ST))

Yes the Macintosh application software market was healthier than the Windows one until oh 1997 or so, and again by ~2003. You can roll your eyes, but it remains true. Now if you misunderstood my specific point and think I meant the larger computing industry, I also feel that Windows being small/weak would have been healthier overall (but it is true that Apple if they had a monopoly would have done the same shit as MS :) ) as long as--say--Workbench, BeOS, and MacOS were all a thing.

Yes, and? The lawsuits failed, as they should have. If you want to talk about shady shit I have a few dozen history books on Microsoft in the 1990s I could point you to lol. I don't know why you dislike Apple so much but a) Apple in the 1980s is not the same company as Apple in the 2000s (likewise for MS), and b) Commodore and Atari were doomed for their own incompetence plus Windows, Apple played no major role in those company's downfall.
 
Last edited:
yes, much healthier :rolleyes:
like how apple tried to push other manufacturers of GUI machines out of the market by using lawyers and shady claims (their lawsuits against Commodore (about the amiga) and Atari (about the ST))
 
Last edited:
Also encourages mediocrity, slow development, anti-consumer practices, and the like just like other monopolies. Look what Apple accomplished with OS X in the time it took Windows Longhorn/Vista to get out the door. Likewise look at the Amiga and Macintosh in 1986-90 vs Windows systems until 1995 or so. Consumers would have been much happier using computers if Amiga & Mac had won everything outside of big corporations.

As regards application software the Macintosh non-business non-game market was generally much healthier, more innovative, and more financially successful then the Windows application market for small to medium developers. This expanded by a factor of 10 for OS X as the Mac software market surged and the Windows software market continued its long slow decline until--a little bit anyway--Windows 8/10. Only large corporations and big developers benefited from Windows (and even then, mostly in an illusorily sense), everyone else was hurt by it.

There are always trade-offs :).



Depends on the President in office and the times. Precedent is nice and all, but there's plenty of precedent for breaking up corporations. American politicians especially in the 1980s-90s are deeply scared of offending/upsetting/taxing corporations so I could easily see a swing the other way: "we broke up Microsoft BECAUSE it was so extreme a monopoly, we'd never do that again".



Yes the Macintosh application software market was healthier than the Windows one until oh 1997 or so, and again by ~2003. You can roll your eyes, but it remains true. Now if you misunderstood my specific point and think I meant the larger computing industry, I also feel that Windows being small/weak would have been healthier overall (but it is true that Apple if they had a monopoly would have done the same shit as MS :) ) as long as--say--Workbench, BeOS, and MacOS were all a thing.

Yes, and? The lawsuits failed, as they should have. If you want to talk about shady shit I have a few dozen history books on Microsoft in the 1990s I could point you to lol. I don't know why you dislike Apple so much but a) Apple in the 1980s is not the same company as Apple in the 2000s (likewise for MS), and b) Commodore and Atari were doomed for their own incompetence plus Windows, Apple played no major role in those company's downfall.

We can argue the merits of Apple and others versus that of Windows but again, most adults had their first computer experience at work. I bought my first Mac in 2008 after 20 years of MS experience and the change has been a pain in the ass. The little nuances are difficult to figure out on your own when you dont have a lot of time to figure things out. Compare that to my first experience on Excel, which was at a job where they provided some basic training and a do it yourself training module. The idea that people would learn MS at work but then go buy a mac for at home is a bit far fetched.
 
Also encourages mediocrity, slow development, anti-consumer practices, and the like just like other monopolies. Look what Apple accomplished with OS X in the time it took Windows Longhorn/Vista to get out the door. Likewise look at the Amiga and Macintosh in 1986-90 vs Windows systems until 1995 or so. Consumers would have been much happier using computers if Amiga & Mac had won everything outside of big corporations.

Apple does not have the market due to greed. In 1983-84 all freshman Students got a computer. Many small and medium size business were using Windows but the superior graphics of the Apple they had one. IBM let anyone make PC's so the price went down on them and Apple kept high prices. PC's finally got powerful enough they were as good as Apples at graphics.

As regards application software the Macintosh non-business non-game market was generally much healthier, more innovative, and more financially successful then the Windows application market for small to medium developers. This expanded by a factor of 10 for OS X as the Mac software market surged and the Windows software market continued its long slow decline until--a little bit anyway--Windows 8/10. Only large corporations and big developers benefited from Windows (and even then, mostly in an illusorily sense), everyone else was hurt by it.

There are always trade-offs :).

Like using Intel chips?


Depends on the President in office and the times. Precedent is nice and all, but there's plenty of precedent for breaking up corporations. American politicians especially in the 1980s-90s are deeply scared of offending/upsetting/taxing corporations so I could easily see a swing the other way: "we broke up Microsoft BECAUSE it was so extreme a monopoly, we'd never do that again".

In the late 1960's the Feds considered breaking up GM because it had a huge market share look at the today. They broke up Ma Bell and it incuured higher cost and part of them have merged back together.



Yes the Macintosh application software market was healthier than the Windows one until oh 1997 or so, and again by ~2003. You can roll your eyes, but it remains true. Now if you misunderstood my specific point and think I meant the larger computing industry, I also feel that Windows being small/weak would have been healthier overall (but it is true that Apple if they had a monopoly would have done the same shit as MS :) ) as long as--say--Workbench, BeOS, and MacOS were all a thing.

Yes, and? The lawsuits failed, as they should have. If you want to talk about shady shit I have a few dozen history books on Microsoft in the 1990s I could point you to lol. I don't know why you dislike Apple so much but a) Apple in the 1980s is not the same company as Apple in the 2000s (likewise for MS), and b) Commodore and Atari were doomed for their own incompetence plus Windows, Apple played no major role in those company's downfall.

If Apple had Microsoft's market share way less people would have them
 
Top