Aside from the view coming from Microsoft itself that nothing should be done about their illegal antitrust activities, a number of organizations and individuals have expressed publicly their view about how Microsoft Corporation should be restructured.  (Yes, restructuring will be necessary.)

First, lets address why restructuring will be necessary.  There are two reasons.  Competition needs to exist in the consumer operating system business (i.e. Microsoft will do everything in its power, illegal or not, to prevent that).  And, second, consumers should not be harmed as an indirect consequence of removing the law breaking management from the Windows product.  Consumers need (and should be demanding) the real benefits of competition and choice in the marketplace for PC operating systems. (And, I do not mean the option to throw away all your software and buy new stuff running on Apple or Linux, assuming you can even get the applications you need on other platforms.)

But, how do you restructure the company?

1) you must have multiple sellers that will compete for sales without the possibility or likelihood of collusion

2) you must have a true "Windows" standard so that consumers can pick and choose their preferred OS vendor based upon other services and any other factor that consumers like to use when picking the companies they patronize

3) you must have a restructuring that is likely to be a permanent one for the foreseeable future

4) and, finally, you want a solution that will be the least disruptive of the industry and the consumers who currently use the monopoly product

So.  How do you do that?

A number of organizations have proposed a 3 way split of the Microsoft Windows product.  This might work for awhile.  Those 3 companies might even compete out in the open for a short period of time.  But, just like the airline industry has been known to collude on prices and services from time to time, 3 companies even if owned independently would not assure anyone (much less the judge) that fair and open competition will exist for any extended period of time.  You also have the problem that the most willing to violate the law of those three companies would likely end up holding all the marbles after a few short years.  The industry might fall right back into the problem it has now with the only company in the market being fully willing to violate any law that gets into its way when trying to preclude competitors.  This possible scenario needs to be avoided.

It is not that 3 is not enough but rather that creating stand alone companies is the wrong way to go about it.  For one, there will be an incredible amount of uncertainty about those 3 companies. Would other corporations be able to merge with one or all three of them?  Could one person with lots of cash simply buy all three up?  (Bill Gates has plenty of cash now and will have then too.)

It is important that the Windows code base be absorbed by a number of the existing players in the industry.  These players should include IBM, HP, Symantec, Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Sun, Inprise, Corel, Caldera, Novell, RedHat and any other companies that might want the Windows code base for whatever reason.  Ideally those companies currently marketing Windows based products would certainly be interested in participating.  (But, you need to ask them to be sure.)

If this were done, no one company (or small group of companies) would control the destiny of the Windows code base.  The control of the current monopoly product would then fall into the collective hands of the industry at large.  Clearly, all of the above mentioned companies would want to preserve the value of the Windows standard and at the same time be incapable of precluding others from the industry by using that product in any way.  A voluntary standards body would have to be formed.  It would be in their interests to do so.  And, best of all, the government would not need to be involved.  If you wanted to require that the current court hearing this case approve the initial structure of the standards body, that would be fine.  But, my guess is that Judge Jackson would simply prefer to let the industry resolve an appropriate solution along that line.  It has done that before.  It can do it again.  And, the legal system nor the federal government needs to do anything along that line

What do the Microsoft Corporation shareholders get?

Well if you sell the Windows code base outright to a predetermined number of open corporate bidders they would get the sales proceeds.  They would get the fair market value of the windows code base as determined in a court conducted market.

I have proposed that between 6 or 8 top bids be permitted to acquire outright all of the Windows source code and property rights on a non-exclusive basis.  This simply means that each bidder will offer what they feel is a fair price for a non-exclusive copy of the Windows code base and Microsoft Corporation shareholders will get the gross proceeds from all approved buyers.

If this were done under the auspices of the court, the precise rules of how the auction or bidding process would be conducted would have to be decided by the court.  Potential bidders could advise the court regarding rules they would like to see.  Referees and receivers accustom to conducting such operations could also apprise the court as to appropriate procedures.

As an end result the following should be achieved:

1) no one company holds monopoly power over consumers

2) no one company holds such power in the future direction of the OS product to be able to preclude competitors offering either operating systems or alternative technologies eliminating the technological dependency upon specific operating systems

3) several major corporations in the industry own a non-exclusive copy of the Windows code base and can not be dictated to by any other company as far as product development, price and configuration is concerned - the assumption is that they would want to remain compliant with the standard windows product as it evolves over time but that is their
choice

4) the Windows standard would restrict itself to a true operating system product and not be bundled with applications industry wide just to manipulate other markets or protect a monopoly status

5) any expansion of the functionality of the operating system for consumers would not take place unless all owners of the product agree through their standards organization.

6) applications are NEVER force sold to 100% of all consumers for any reason

7) the corrupt and illegal management at Microsoft is separated from the monopoly product.

8) and finally, consumers are no longer told what they must buy and from whom but have multiple choices of all applications and even a choice of a supplier for the key operating system they may select - even if it is based upon a dominant standard or simply compatible with their current systems.

Many corporations (except Microsoft) are highly qualified to further develop, distribute and service the consumer operating system.  Many corporations (except Microsoft) currently sell and support multiple systems and focus their effort upon the needs of the consumer rather than trying to dictate the sale of proprietary branded products.  IBM,
HP and Compaq clearly qualify in this way.  Others do as well. Microsoft Corporation has disqualified itself.  Other companies should likewise be encouraged to adopt business plans that focus upon the needs of the consumer and not solely the needs of the monopolist at the expense of the consumer.