zlacker

Hmmm, interesting. How would this be implemented in practice? EU passing laws about specific things that Microsoft should and shouldn't do?

>>aerzen+(OP)
EU can only implement laws regarding companies doing buisness in europe.

EU cannot tell Microsoft in general what to do.

>>aerzen+(OP)
It's something done completely inside the Judiciary, with only oversight by the Legislative.

Indeed, the AT&T case at the US is the textbook example, it's worth looking at it.

>>hutzli+Zb
It can tell what Microsoft does in Europe. But, of course, MS can always decide to abandon the region instead of complying too.

>>marcos+Ag
That "region" is a very big market. So that is not really an option for them. On the other hand large parts of the economy and government in the EU are totally dependant on Microsoft products and would be screwed if they would pull the plug.

>>hutzli+cr
IMO, abandoning the EU would be fatal to MS, not exactly because of lost revenue but because of second order effects. But I didn't want to put my opinion on the GP post.

>>marcos+fu
"but because of second order effects. "

Which is why Bill Gates personally intervened, when Munich switched to Linux a couple of years ago.

>>hutzli+cr
They wouldn't abandon the market, they'd just introduce a complying version for Europe like N or K versions in the past. That way they can continue to screw everyone else.

>>aerzen+(OP)
Just eliminate vertical integration in the space.

Enforce the kernel team must be separate from the application layer - let other people build operating system UIs on top of the kernel.

For the operating system team to be separated from the product teams.

Even go further and unbundle the product teams - make office separate from bing which is separate from edge, etc.

Just make sure you also do it to Apple, Google, etc.

This is what the US almost did in the 90s.

>>marcos+fu
Yep. Default Win for Red Hat, Suse and Canonical!

And after some (hard) years of actual competition benefits of compatibility will lead to lower prices and more choices.

>>hutzli+Gy
Munich itself is weird case. There some smaller municipalities which have done better with Linux, lower-saxony and the police and the recent switch to Matrix of the Army.

Regarding Munich: Three competing IT-Departments! Repeat, three. An own special distribution. They didn’t migrated all applications (either do it or not) and a lot of stuff was always done on Windows. Finally Microsoft moved a headquarter to Munich and solved it with “tax money”.

Rumors say that the reverse migration to Microsoft itself was also “bumpy”. Let me guess, three IT-Departments?

The former major of Munich also gave an interesting interview about the “experience”.

>>CSMast+CS
You probably could do that for some parts but have to control the interaction. For big integrated parts is is probably easier to control them as howl?

A mere split up will lead to “baby bells” and the bigger one will just buy others - and centralize again.

PS: We should remember that Microsoft was able to destroy Nokia with an installed CEO (Stephen Elop) of their own. Killed the already shipping Linux smartphone. Installed Windows Mobile and Nokia was finally dead. Nokia itself did mistakes before but from outside this was questionable?

>>hutzli+cr
It is the only option if faced with a corporate break up. Rather leaving an already shrinking market than literally cease existing.

>>CSMast+CS
While what you're proposing is probably in the spirit of antitrust laws, the actual effect would be the US perceiving this to be an "economic act of war" not unlike the economic sanctions they have been dealing out lately...