The options:
1) Microsoft's suggestion:
Microsoft has suggested to the court of public opinion that any change to their ability to innovate and change Windows as they please is unacceptable. Common sense would dictate that a guilty defendant should not be able to dictate their own punishment. sarcasm mode on:"Please don't throw po' Br'er Rabbit in de briar patch." A guilty party should not be allowed to function without restraint placed upon their actions. The public would not stand for a murderer to go unpunished. A company would not stand for an embezzler to go unpunished. Microsoft, if guilty, should not go unpunished.
2) Split Microsoft in to separate organizations based upon product or market
It sounds reminiscent of the most recent anti-trust break up. Yet history should once again teach certain lessons. By creating many small entities which serve the same "local market" yet different and non-overlapping customers, the court and its officers should note the problems both legislatively and competitively which have happened since the government decree with AT&T. The same mistake should not occur again. The ultimate goal of any settlement should be the restoration of comptetition to the marketplace. A settlement which separates Microsoft along the lines of product or market does nothing to promote further competition within any of those markets.
Some might argue that such a separation would prevent the monopoly group from exerting pressure on behalf of non-monopoly spin-offs. This might constitute a minimal solution to prevent further violation of anti-trust law, but it provides no behavioral basis for such a presumption. Since none of the spin-offs in this scenario is a direct competitor to another, there is no reinforcement for non-cooperative behavior among members of the organization. Relational bonds between former colleagues and potential financial bonds created through stock reallocation plans will in fact create an environment where cooperation between the spin-offs will re-emerge. This is a solution which is fraught with unforeseen dangers and will more than likely lead all involved parties back to the court room. On behalf of the American taxpayer paying for the mistakes of a botched first settlement, this option (in the words of Microsoft) is wholly unacceptable.
3) Auction the source code to Microsoft Windows (consumer) to several competitors
Microsoft should not profit in any fashion from any settlement. Crime does not pay.
Further consideration should be given to the defendant's non-cooperation with the Court in complying with orders to produce evidence during this trial, such as financial records. It could in fact become an enforcement nightmare for the Court to enforce that the source code turned over to competitors was in fact the same code used to manufacture final product by Microsoft.
Finally Microsoft Windows (consumer) is in fact a dead-end product. Although Microsoft has stated that there will be one follow-on release to Windows 98, the product itself has an extremely limited time horizon. This is the one of the primary reasons why Microsoft is trying to leverage this monopoly in favor of its other products. Since there are still several years left in the development cycle of Windows (consumer), then a solution cannot do nothing and wait for the natural end of life of this product. On the other hand the settlement cannot allow a situation where the guilty party only cedes partial rights to a product whose future has already been end of lifed. This is not a solution.
4) Split the companies in to several "Baby Bill's" with each company having full rights to all code of the parent Microsoft.
This is the competition option. The philosophical question this option brings to the fore is a free market based upon laissez-faire or upon competition. This option forces you to choose between the belief that the market can only function while free and fully open competition occurs or the belief that laissez-faire conditions never produce situations where competition and the market are stifled.
There are still possible problems with relational distortions to the market due to previous personal interactions. This may reach from allegiances to corporate executives due to wealth worship to dislike of salesmen due to previous negotiations.
Furthermore there are sticky questions about stock settlements for employees, which make this another settlement where crime would pay for the individuals but not for the company. Although American corporate law separates the liabilities of a corporation from its board and executives, it should not allow the individuals who established the rules of the game to profit if those rules violated the law.
A final point on this subject is a potential for the fracture of the de jure standard enforced by the monopoly of Windows (consumer). Several of my colleagues have expressed displeasure at the thought of dealing with 3 or more versions of Windows. Considering the amount of press relations and sales talk that Microsoft hs made about the "fracture" of Unix and the incompatabilities of this competing product, it is not surprising that the average Windows user would have a fear of competing versions of Windows (consumer). Microsoft has warned that application software will not be produced for splitered operating system platforms, but history shows that Independant Software Vendors could produce finished commericial product for the splintered Unix platform and those that wished could with little effort produce a commercial product from that same source code for the Unix-like operating system Linux.
5) Radical Solutions
a) Surrender Intellectual Property Rights to Windows (consumer)
To ensure that no one profits from the ill-gained monopoly (as per the 1995 Consent Decree) all future rights and source code to Windows (consumer) would be assigned to a disinterested software-oriented non-profit to be relicensed only under the GNU General Public License. The newly licensed non-profit would assume no current or future financial liabilities for the existing product with the liabilities remaining with the original issuer of the product. This solution would maintain the ad hoc standards that a single Windows platform creates.
b) Surrender Intellectual Property Rights to Windows (portable: aka WindowsCE or WinCE)
Since the existing monopoly position has created an incredible profit and stock windfall for the defendant and said defendant has leveraged that wealth for the purchase of substantial holdings in hardware companies that have the option to license portable or embedded Computer Operating Systems from the defendant, the Court should remove such opportunities by transfering the license and source code to the Windows (portable) operating system to the same non-profit which holds the Windows (consumer) license.
c) Windows Y2K Upgrade Fund
Since Windows (consumer) holds a monopoly position and the Internet is now an invaluable portion of the economy, Microsoft should not be allowed to profit from the need of the American public to function in a year not more than 9 months from now. Some amount of money shall be apportioned from all proceeds from Windows (consumer) to cover the costs of producing and distributing free Year 2000 compliant Windows (consumer) CD-ROMS for all licensees of any version of Windows (consumer).
d) Windows 95 and 98 refunds
Since a monopoly position was used to artificially manipulate the market price of Windows (consumer), licensees of all versions of Windows 95 and 98 (and 3.1 sold after the signing of the 1995 Consent Decree) are due a refund. This refund should come partially from the defendant and partially from those OEMs which profited from this monopoly position. (Crime does not pay even for accomplices.)
e) Microsoft Office or other Microsoft product refunds
All copies of Microsoft Office or other Microsoft products which were purchased through an OEM which had a bundling agreement with Windows (consumer) between the time of the 1995 Consent Decree and the present shall have the purchase amount refunded in full by both the defendant and the OEM. (Crime does not pay even for accomplices.)
f) Stock Divestiture
All options for stock held by Microsoft employees shall be exercised immediately as if fully-vested.
All shares held by the Corporate Executives or Board Members shall be sold immediately at the inflation-adjusted split-deadjusted 1995 Consent Decree price.
If spin-offs are created, current Microsoft Executives and Board Members are prohibited from owning stock in any of the spin-offs.
I am sure that there are differing opinions on this subject and more solutions that could be offered. If you have an opinion, feel free to drop me a line. I get back to it all, as work deadlines allow.