Microsoft nemesis Gary Reback on: Gates vs. Reno, Round Two hotwired.com
McChesney: So it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, what the Justice Department is asking a court to do is todefine what an operating system is. Or, turn that around, and define what a stand-alone software application is. Is a browser a separate piece of software? Can a court actually define what a software application is, an operating system or a stand-alone? What do you think?
Reback: I think that's probably the way Microsoft would like the issue couched. I think that if we step back for a moment, we have to keep in perspective the fact that Microsoft already has a decree outstanding against it. It's very much in the position of a parolee that is demanding the same right to carry a gun that anybody else has, or the same right to travel out of state that everybody else has. You'll recall, and certainly everyone else recalls, the fact that Microsoft was accused by the government in 1994 of illegal behavior and it pled no contest in that situation. Now, had Microsoft wanted to raise these issues about the extent to which other products could be bundled into the operating system, it could have done so then. But instead it pled no contest to the charges against it, the charges of illegal conduct, and it has now violated according to the government the very decree that it agreed to abide by. So I don't think we start here with a blank slate. Nobody's asking the government to intervene in the industry, or decide what products go where, when, or with whom. People are merely expecting their government to enforce the antitrust laws, and the government is merely expecting Microsoft to abide by the agreement that it signed, presumably in good faith.
Well, that's one point of view; others say DOJ, in a precedent setting action, found Microsoft not guilty of being a monopoly, whatever that means.
McChesney: What do you think the court will do?
Reback: Hard for me to say. As you pointed out, I'm not an unbiased observer. I think that Microsoft has beenviolating the consent decree for a very long period of time; I think it's had an enormously detrimental effect onconsumer choice. So given the factual presentation already made by the Justice Department, the sworn deposition testimony by the computer manufacturers that you've mentioned and others, including Compaq, for example, the largest manufacturer of personal computers, I would have little doubt in my own mind as to what is right, but I'm not the guy wearing the robes. So I think we're going to have to wait and see how the judge evaluates these presentations, how he goes about considering the evidence before him and what he decides to do. This is not a judge that I'm personally familiar with; I've never appeared before him myself.
Or, as the former cult leader would say, tell it to the judge.
McChesney: It'll come back to that issue whether he feels, I would think, whether he feels that he's being asked to define what a piece of software is, or whether he's being asked to rule on whether or not Microsoft's muscle in the operating-system business isn't being used to market other products. Ultimately, if I were a judge and I felt that I was being asked to define what constitutes a piece of software, I'd be very uncomfortable with that.
Reback: I think that his first take is that he's being asked to enforce a court order by the Justice Department of the United States, that has conducted a lengthy investigation and has presented evidence in the form of sworn testimony and declarations and Microsoft's own documents. I really don't think that we're necessarily going to get off into some of these issues where Microsoft would like to go, because I don't think they're germane to the initial question of whether they can keep their word or not. That's the first question here: Can Microsoft keep its word? Has it kept its word? And if the answer to that is "no," then we have the issue of the remedy.
But, Microsoft keeping its word would be ethical, and that would be unethical. Anyway, words mean what you want them to mean, and this consent decree thing is a "known issue". Bill always wanted to build the browser into the OS, even back in '93, just ask Fred Moody. The rest was all a Potemkin village play to lull the competition to sleep.
Cheers, Dan. |
