US press debates 'drastic' verdict

Bill Gates's corporation is to appeal against the verdict

The Microsoft judgement is dominating the headlines in Thursday's press in the United States - with opinions on Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's verdict ranging from "the best medicine" to "excessive and flawed".

New York Times analyst Steve Lohr called the outcome "not just a defeat for Microsoft but a rout, not a closely-fought legal contest but a judicial ratification of the government's case".

Jackson's order seems excessive and flawed in many specifics

Seattle Times

An editorial in the same paper nevertheless said that the order to split Microsoft into two independent companies was "the proper remedy for repeated violations of the antitrust laws".

"A less drastic remedy would prove ineffectual or horribly intrusive," the New York Times continued.

"Break-up is the best way to create a market where Microsoft can no longer smother software that would be good for consumers but bad for Microsoft."

'Extreme'

But the Washington Post had reservations about Judge Jackson's solution.

"We agree that Microsoft broke the law but worry nonetheless that the judge's remedy is too drastic," an editorial said.

The Washington Post pondered which route of appeal would be more appropriate: via the Supreme Court, as preferred by the Justice Department, or through the more conventional route of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Splitting Microsoft could energise parts of today's company

Los Angeles Times

"As much as the normal route might gum up this already slug-slow case, the DC Circuit is the better answer," the editorial concluded.

"A breakup of Microsoft is such an extreme punishment, and its potential effect on the economy so great, that haste would be unwise."

'Flawed'

In Microsoft's home city, the Seattle Times also appeared dismayed at a ruling that would previously have been regarded as "unthinkable".

"Jackson's order seems excessive and flawed in many specifics," an editorial declared.

But a Los Angeles Times leader suggested that the judicial order may yet prove "the best medicine" - not only for the US economy, but for the Microsoft corporation itself.

"Splitting Microsoft could energise parts of today's company and let talented people range widely to develop applications for office and home software rather than constantly trying to control the marketplace through Microsoft's Windows operating system," senior economics editor James Flanigan wrote.

"And a freewheeling Microsoft would encourage innovation in the personal computer industry - innovation that is lagging today because Microsoft's heavy hand restricts what computer makers and software developers may do."