38-page study: Don_t Tear Redmond Apart

Breaking up Microsoft would harm consumers, the computer industry, and perhaps the entire US economy, a new report claims. Even the more modest step of altering how Microsoft licenses Windows would make consumers "pay more for their operating systems, Internet browsers, and virtually all software that runs on a PC," states the 38-page study, released Thursday. The report -- "Breakup and Compulsory Licensing: Remedies or Bad Medicine?" -- arrives as the Department of Justice considers what to ask US District Judge Th.Jackson to do should Microsoft lose its antitrust lawsuit. Its authors, the laissez-faire Association for Competitive Technology and lawyers at the law firm of Sidley and Austin, say that if Microsoft is found guilty of violating the Sherman Act, Jackson should impose only "traditional remedies" such as outlawing certain types of contracts. Microsoft_s opponents are divided about what judicial remedies would be most appropriate. In January, former Judge Robert Bork -- whose current client list includes Netscape -- said Microsoft should be broken into three identical companies at the conclusion of its antitrust trial. James Love of Ralph Nader_s Consumer Project on Technology has proposed "transparent pricing," which would bar Microsoft from charging PC makers different prices. The new report argues, as Microsoft lawyers have during the trial, "Windows can be displaced in the marketplace despite its current popularity. "In the hardware area, market forces are already shifting away from the PC desktop and toward Internet appliances, television set-top boxes, handheld devices, and alternative PC platforms, all of which are subject to vibrant competition," the paper says. The report claims far-reaching remedies could give investors the jitters and harm the stock market. The ASCII Group, which represents computer resellers, joined ACT in presenting the report.