We’Re Dealing With A Hardened Offender Break It Up Create “Baby Bills” And Make ‘Em Compete.

Microsoft doesn’t want to make up or break up. No, the company that put the “sin” in “synergy” isn’t acting like a monopoly that was judged guilty of anti-trust violations.

When the Federal Trade Commission accused Intel of bullying chip-purchasing firms, Intel quietly settled. Compare that with Microsoft.

It has refused all compromises and has flouted previous judgments that called for it to avoid anti-competitive practices. Its recidivism is not encouraging.

Instead, company leaders have floated disingenuous arguments about why their monopolistic company should not be broken up.

Argument No. 1: A breakup would end the synergy that created the innovative Windows. First, Windows is a virtual copy of the “point and click” system that Apple created, only more unwieldy.

Second, during the trial, Microsoft executives testified that their program writers do not have an unfair advantage because they learn about the next generation of Windows at the same time as competing programmers. If that’s true, splitting the applications and the operating systems divisions shouldn’t hurt innovation.

Argument No. 2: How can a simple case about competing Web browsers lead to a breakup? Isn’t that excessive? Microsoft had the opportunity in 1995 to keep this out of court. But it refused to admit to its predatory tactics against the Web browser company Netscape. It’s only when the issue landed in court, that other companies emerged with their own stories of Microsoft abuse.

Argument No. 3: The U.S. economy will suffer greatly from a breakup. This argument is contradicted by another Microsoft argument: “We’re not that powerful or important.” The company points to the Linux operating system and other innovations as proof that it is just one of many players.

The truth is that personal computers will always be important for those who use them to write or crunch numbers. And Microsoft knows that Windows is not headed the way of the typewriter.

The government has two choices: Put the company on permanent probation, with restrictions that would quell innovation and be difficult to enforce; or split the monopoly into a few competing “Baby Bills,” as the government did with still-thriving AT&T.

The breakup would foster competition and innovation, and the winners would be consumers.