Good post, Derek.
So nice to hear from good ol' Chairman Bill.
From the article you link to:
"What is at issue is the interpretation of the word integrate," Gates said.
Um, well, not to question the richest man in the world, or anything, but actually, it seems to me that the outcome turns on the definition of the noun "product," not the verb "to integrate."
Looking at the terms of the Consent Decree itself, we note the following highlighted language (from my earlier post, which links to more excerpts techstocks.com ):
"E. Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon:
(i) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products) . . .
Now, this is not the whole agreement, and I'm no expert, but all this says (using Webster's definition of "to integrate") is that this provision, in and of itself, shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing "whole" products.
Now, Windows, it seems to me, is a "whole" product. You don't need Internet Explorer to run Windows.
Internet Explorer is also a "whole" product. You don't need Windows to run, for example, the Mac version of Internet Explorer.
So nothing in the consent decree can be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing two "whole" products called Windows and Internet Explorer. That does not mean that the Decree cannot be construed to prohibit the tying together of these two "whole" products.
A relaxed Gates told cohost Stewart Alsop that the integration of the Internet Explorer browser was "clearly allowed" under the terms of the consent decree. He said the government is operating under "some strange definition of integration" in contending that the Microsoft browser oversteps the decree's bounds.
I'd be curious to hear Chairman Bill's definition -- let's see how it stacks up to Webster's. I'd also be curious to hear his definition of the word, "product."
Is a "product" whatever Microsoft says it is?
Gates said: "You have to control your own product. We're asking for that right."
Yes. Agreed. The Decree does not prohibit Microsoft from controlling Windows and it does not prohibit Microsoft from controlling Internet Explorer, which are two separate products.
Furthermore, however, in addition to defining what the product is, one must also draw the distinction between control of the product itself and control of the distribution of the product. When your method of distribution threatens to extend your monopoly from one product market to another, and contravenes antitrust law, you do not have the exclusive right to control how your product is distributed.
All the Consent Decree does is control to a very limited extent methods by which Microsoft distributes its two products, so as to insure that Microsoft's monopoly over operating systems does not get extended by illegal means onto the Internet, by prohibiting Microsoft from forcing people who want the Windows product also to take the Internet Explorer product.
If Microsoft extends its monopoly to the Internet by legal, non-prohibited means, such as by building a genuinely better browser and competing like hell with it nothing in the Consent Decree, I'm sure, prohibits that.
And my last question: Where's Bullmore? |
