[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Tech Update |
|
What's wrong with Nader's Microsoft plan
DOJ, not OMB, deals with
anti-trust
By Dan Farber
March 5, 2003
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
On a more serious note, I can understand Nader's quest to protect the public from Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Some of the remedies suggested by Nader have been entertained by the Department of Justice during the last four years of litigation between the U.S. government and Microsoft. Nine states and the District of Columbia are now contesting the DOJ's watered-down settlement with Microsoft. Final arguments are due June 19 from the Microsoft attorneys and from the nine states and the District of Columbia. A ruling from Kollar-Kotelly is expected later this year.
But it is the Department of Justice that deals with anti-trust issues, not the OMB. Just like any other corporation, the government can wield its purchasing power, but not by legislating limits on what the government's vast array of agencies can buy to solve their business problems. Windows could be thrown off an approved list within the government procurement bureaucracy, but at what point does that action become illegal and anti-competitive to Microsoft?
| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |
Today, government technology officials and the private sector are trying to figure out how to deal with security holes in Microsoft products. Debates are raging about whether open source software is more or less secure that Microsoft's code. Could various branches and departments of government use their clout as a huge Microsoft customer to exert some leverage? For sure. Just stop buying the products because they don't meet the requirements for the job or adequate return on investment. Start using OpenOffice.org or StarOffice instead of Microsoft Office, for example. If the government or any company believes that a monoculture environment -- meaning too Microsoft-centric in this instance -- is less cost-effective and more vulnerable to hacking, then mix it up with products from other vendors.
Software is a dynamic marketplace, and while Microsoft has risen to the top, it is embattled on several fronts to maintain its dominance and to enter new markets. Check out what is going on in Germany and Taiwan. The |
| |
e.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2869075,00.html">German government recently made a deal to IBM computers running SuSE's version of Linux for desktops and servers. The Taiwanese government plans to start an open-source project that could save the country as much as $295 million in royalty payments to Microsoft.
Nader has the right idea. Consumers of technology should have choice. But technology doesn't mix well with government regulations that dictate how to build and distribute technology products. Let the courts deal with Microsoft's predatory behavior, and let the government, private industry, and individual consumers decide if Microsoft's products are worthy of their investment. If the courts don't provide sufficient protection for consumers, then start voting with your checkbook. The climate is changing. Microsoft is the desktop king now, but business dynasties have risen and fallen without the heavy hand of government.
What do you think about Nader’s idea? Is this really the way to reign in Microsoft? TalkBack below or e-mail us with your thoughts.
 |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
![]() |
|
![]() |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
