"Any remedy that breaks up Microsoft is extreme and undesirable." -
                                                                                                         

So cries the global computer giant today. The U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, supported by 17 of the 19 states, had ordered the break-up of Microsoft. The verdict said Microsoft should spin off its business into two companies – One, selling the Windows operating system and the other, selling the application software (MS Office and Internet Explorer). The MS operating system is used in nearly 90 percent of the computers worldwide.

Bill Gates never expected that anybody could find the decision of splitting of the company as correct. For 25 years, the company has been running successfully with core values of Integrity, Innovation, Customer Satisfaction and building great partnerships.

However, what Microsoft calls success, many call it Monopoly, domination and last but not the least – Violation of antitrust laws. Though the company has been smart enough not to leave any clear witness, the charges have been there for quite sometime now. A look at the allegations on the company:

•  Abusive Monopolist.

• Violator of antitrust laws.

• Illegally protected its Windows computer operating system monopoly from competition.

• Cornered the operating systems and browser markets.

• Proved untrustworthy in the past.

• Discriminates against PC makers that support rival products.

• Licenses Windows on discriminatory terms.

• Has entered into deals to restrict competition.

• Has not properly dealt with firms offering competing products.

These are just a few. But the company has surely something to say in its defense or rather call it - to avoid splitting up. Microsoft says:

• Only when the company is united can it produce products and services the customers want.

• The judgement restricts the ability to create new software.

• The U.S. court of Appeal had earlier rejected a government challenge on the ground appreciating Microsoft’s efforts in integrating Windows Operating System to work well with the Internet.

• Crippling regulations that reach far beyond the facts of the case, make the company less innovative and make products costlier for the consumers.

• Cannot give the source code of the software products without financial reimbursement.

• Microsoft needs six months to produce witnesses and gather evidence.

• There is no clear evidence of price-fixing.

Before coming to any conclusions as to right a wrong, a look at what kind of implications the judgement is likely to have:

• Will allow PC makers to modify Windows by giving them access to the source code.

• Purchase of Microsoft products will be unconditional to the taking of Windows License.

• Microsoft will be forced to share the code of its software with application developers.

• Cheaper versions of Windows will be available.

• Licensing and support of older versions will be available at the pre-release price of the new versions.

• Disclose programming interfaces in a timely manner.

• Restore competition.

• Curb Microsoft’s behavior.

Definitely, the domination of the company in the industry is likely to lower. There will be a more competitive platform for new products and services. But Microsoft products could become costlier to the consumers.

What will be the final verdict of the case is difficult to guess. For the time being, the company was trying to get some lead-time. On June 21, Microsoft judge delayed the restrictions on Microsoft’s business, which has given the company some more time. The restrictions were to be effective from Sept. 5 as per the earlier verdict. This leaves the company free to deal with the Microsoft Millennium version – Microsoft Me, planned to be launched in September.