One of the problems with the blogosphere is the insane amount of crap spewed forth by idiotic yo-yos at every turn.
Having to navigate through all the noise is very painful; however, one in a while, a gem emerges.
In a very informative article, titled Has Google actually read U.S. v. Microsoft?, James V. DeLong breaks down the ruling in US vs. Microsoft. Not the discarded, illiterate decision by Penfield Jackson; the seasoned, thoughtful, and just decision by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (DeLong is special counsel for Kamlet Shepherd & Reichert. He is also vice president and senior analyst for the Convergence Law Institute.)
Talking about the recent spate of amicus briefs by Google in order to perpetuate is current business model while frantically seeking the Next Big Thing, Mr. DeLong exposes the hypocrisy that is Google’s position
It attempts to bring desktop search into the original consent agreement Microsoft had with the DOJ and several states. It touches several times on Microsoft’s ‘monopoly’.
However, DeLong educates with the following points:
1 Having a monopoly honestly obtained by superior skill and foresight is NOT illegal under antitrust laws.
2 The only antitrust charge that survived against Microsoft was that it acted unlawfully to maintain its monopoly.
3) The goal of the decree remains: to allow the proliferation of middleware, which will in turn provide a mechanism that will allow the development of competitive operating systems for Intel-based PCs, if anyone is inclined to create such systems
He concludes by stating the obvious: “An ironist might call this monopoly maintenance by Google. Perhaps antitrust fans can anticipate a U.S. v. Google, in which Exhibit 1 will be the intervention brief.”
It goes without saying that that is my fervent prayer.
Folks, GOOG is currently a one-trick pony, cash being thrown off by the company notwithstanding. All other initiatives by the company, while getting it good press, have foundered. Gmail? Checkout? Shops? Apps?
As a pure investment play, however, Google – the stock, is oh so sweet, second only to AAPL in my eyes. However, I have not, and do not intend to avail myself of that rollercoaster ride.
The article is here.
Previous/Related posts
Gmail, Web History & Feedburner
No dogfooding at Google for Google Apps Chalk one for GOOG
Crocodile tears at the googleplex
Join the fray here or email me at john.obeto@absolutevista.com.
Visit Microsoft Subnet for more opinions and news. http://www.networkworld.com/subnets/microsoft/
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Jon wants me to re-read the decision as well....
His words in an email to me:
Actually, Jon, I did.
To the points you made:
I never said the decision was favorable to Microsoft. I said the decision was just. I also said Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision was forthright, thoughtful, and followed the rule of law. Which, of course, cannot be said for the incredibly as*-backwards decision by that Judge Ito wanna-be.
If the decision, as you have intimated to me is to promote choice in middleware, then it has succeeded. Right now, the internet is forcing Microsoft to pirouette nimbly and all the while delicately in order to stay relevant.
Or, do you think the decision was to help GOOG reach $600?