A father/son lawyer/computer-engineer team presents disturbing facts in the Microsoft case that the average person has never heard about, criticisms of the remedies proposed to date, and a novel analysis of the case that points directly to the only remedy that would prevent Microsoft from repeating its illegal behavior in the future.

In this article we present an analysis of one of the main threads of the Microsoft “Browser War” and a proposed remedy that we believe is the most effective way to prevent Microsoft from repeating its illegal behavior in the future. Microsoft saw a combined threat to its operating system enterprise from the fusion of the World-Wide Web, Netscape’s popular web browser, and Sun’s cross-platform Java technology. Microsoft was so concerned about protecting its operating system monopoly that it put economic pressure on various corporations to harm Microsoft’s competitors, and it subverted standards of compatibility to undermine the attempts of numerous organizations to increase the ability of computers to interoperate with each other. Reorganizing the company into two parts, akin to the “Baby Bell” break-up, will not prevent future repeats of Microsoft’s more subtle maneuvers. Neither will the settlement agreement of November 2nd, 2001. Instead, we propose an open-standards measure to put Microsoft’s most widely used computer interfaces into the public domain and their specification under the control of an independent body representing the public. This measure is based on the power of the United Stated District Court to enforce the antitrust laws of the United States.