If the Internet were the sole issue before the court, then your argument would be at least somewhat robust. I agree that if you take a broad view of the whole Internet access picture, as it is now, and more so, as it will be in the near future, you can easily argue that accessing the Internet by PC is just one of several alternatives. It does happen to be the main one today, but probably will not be the main one when non-PC appliances, such as wireless phones, become more widely used. That argument could influence the mediator in recommending solutions. It doesn't relieve Microsoft of existing liability.
But how do you deal with the issue that Microsoft withheld licensing the newer version of Windows to IBM until it was too late for IBM to have units ready for the back to college crowd, all because IBM insisted on its right to sell its Lotus 1-2-3 and accompanying software? The fact finding evidence showed that Microsoft considered IBM a competitor, not an ally, and therefore not only withheld the Windows license but forced IBM to pay more for the software. If that isn't monopoly pricing, I don't know what is, and neither do any of the antitrust experts who have commented on the matter.
A similar situation took place regarding Apple, where Microsoft withheld making its Office suited available for the new Mac OS-8 system, until Apple agreed to certain demands, such as placing the Internet Explorer icon on its main menu. This was in some respects even worse than the behavior toward IBM, since Microsoft already had the software packaged and ready to distribute. Thus, Judge Jackson could argue (from the evidence provided by Microsoft) that Microsoft actually REDUCED its own profits by withholding its Office upgrade from the Macintosh market.
No antitrust expert is going to allow that kind of behavior to continue, no matter what terms may finally be agreed on if a settlement takes place. Even if Microsoft reaches a settlement in which it is allowed to admit no wrongdoing in regard to antitrust violations, it will still have to reckon with private lawsuits from IBM, Apple, and others similarly affected, charging interference with business. |
