In a rather bold ruling, judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered that Microsoft be broken up into two pieces; one to own and market Windows and one to own and market everything else. It doesn't matter, since chances are that the decision will be squashed on appeal, and nothing will happen at all during that lengthy process. Of course, it doesn't really matter anyway. That computer (remember when they were called IBM compatibles?) and Microsoftware on your desk might be irrelevant soon, as the tech world heads towards wireless Internet access, Palm Pilots, ultra smart cell phones and other devices which will be very Star Treky and will have little to do with Microsoft. Since our legal processes are lengthy and the time it takes for a piece of equipment or software to become obsolete is rather brief, we'll probably get to watch an amusing appellate battle with judges arguing about browsers and operating systems and hard disk space during a time when we'll be using Web based storage space and where the browsers and operating systems are entirely indistinguishable.

In the end, I've had a hard time identifying Microsoft's real crime. It has always been possible to de-install or ignore Internet Explorer, after all. It just happened to come with the computer and it was free. Are the courts really saying that I, as a consumer, shouldn't be allowed to get a free Web browser when I get my computer? As great as Netscape is, I'd much rather have a free browser than one I have to pay extra for, so is the court really protecting me in this instance?

Maybe I'm being naive. Maybe there are hidden charges for the "free Internet Explorer." That would be consistent with the way big business does business. But if there are hidden costs to me, the consumer, no one has spelled them out for me in a clear manner. So, maybe it was bad for Netscape and Linux and anyone else trying to compete. But I don't care about them at all. They're all Bill Gateses to me --rich, opportunistic, and brilliant. Some of them win, some of them lose. I just want my free stuff.

Besides, even if Microsoft is broken up into Micro and Soft, Bill Gates will be a rich man. The two companies might separately be worth more than the one company is today (just like the Baby Bells after the big Ma Bell break-up) and, nothing will really change. Has competition made phone rates more reasonable? No! AT&T and Bell Atlantic fleece me once a month for local and long distance phone service. If they were charging a fair price for their services, they wouldn't be filthy rich, after all.

But I've never seen a bit of effective government regulation on the private sector. Costs for goods and services keep going up --basic needs for modern living like food, water, heat, electricity, housing and communications are by no mans guaranteed to every person in the country. Why? Because of the need for profit.

Meanwhile, the government wastes its time on Microsoft and has gotten a lot of press for it. But it doesn't really matter. Microsoft isn't really that important and breaking up the company will not make software and hardware cheaper for consumers. I wish the government were paying attention to the really important issues and make sure that utilities companies don't gouge consumers during what will be a hot summer (as I said about the phone companies, if utility rates weren't universally too high, then utility companies wouldn't have millionaire execs and billions in revenues) and to set a national standard for long distance calling (around 4 cents a minute would be a good maximum, with no monthly fees) and to make sure that the industries making billions off of housing and food can't reap profits while excluding the poor.

Michael Maiello proposes breaking Microsoft up into three parts: the Windows, the software and the forced philanthropy wing.