IS MICROSOFT'S LAWYER TOO TOUGH FOR THE JOB? businessweek.com
The company insists that it complied with the judge's order as best as it could, given the technological constraints. But a growing chorus of critics thinks Microsoft is playing a pointless game of hardball. Ever since the agency filed a petition on Nov. 11 charging Microsoft with violating the terms of a 1995 consent decree, Neukom and his attorneys have been blasting the government's attorneys and fighting Judge Jackson's decisions. On Jan. 12, for example, the company sought to remove Harvard University law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was appointed by Judge Jackson to sort through the lawsuit's vexing technological issues. Noting that Microsoft first attacked Lessig in a widely disseminated letter, Columbia University law professor Harvey J. Goldschmid said that ''the way they did it, in public, was unwise.'' Instead, they should have initially expressed their opposition ''in a normal way--with a motion in court.''
Neukom's aggressiveness isn't irritating just the feds. Company attorneys also have angered the Texas attorney general's office, which is conducting its own antitrust investigation. During a routine debate over document disclosure, Microsoft lawyers adopted a ''superior tone,'' says Special Assistant Attorney General Samuel Goodhope. ''When they act like we don't know anything, that sparks a fire in our gut.''
Neukom, who declined to be interviewed, has whipped up his legal troops to fight so furiously that some observers predict the general counsel ultimately may hurt his company. Microsoft's behavior has been ''most unwise,'' says former U.S. Assistant Attorney General William F. Baxter, who in the early 1980s led Justice's breakup of AT&T. ''It is the kind of thing that builds up barriers to sensible settlement negotiations later,'' says Baxter, now an antitrust scholar at Stanford University Law School.
Well, like I've said before, he who lives by the PR sword, dies by the PR sword. On the legal front, My line has always been Microsoft's got good lawyers, and isn't afraid to use them. Lawyers are paid to represent their clients; in the current matter, as I've said, the middle finger seems to be coming right from the top. But we get to that next:
In fact, Neukom is in sync with Gates on a wide array of issues. Key decisions ''are made between Gates and [Executive Vice-President Steven A.] Ballmer and Neukom,'' says James Sowers, a former Justice attorney who watched the three in action before the consent decree. Adds Robert Litan, an analyst at the Brookings Institution who helped negotiate the consent decree while at Justice: ''Throughout the investigation, it was clear to us that Bill Gates was calling the ultimate shots, and Bill Neukom made no bones about that.''
The Microsofties all deny ever having heard of Ballmer's "Embrace and Demolish" permutation, so maybe it's restricted to this innermost circle. Finally, on the political front, we have this amusing little bit of background:
In 1980, the California native made a bid for attorney general of Washington state, but as a liberal Democrat, he was defeated in the Reagan blitz.
A new hero for me! Actually, the whole Libertarian/Objectivist defense of Microsoft is I think a bit off target. Computer types tend to be disporportionately in those camps, by my long time observations. Silicon Valley startup types probably more so than Microsofties. There's maybe some irony in the former invoking antitrust now, but I don't think Bill or his lawyer are particularly political. I'd guess they're too focused on world domination to bother. And, I don't think the avowed fan of F. Scott would take the time to plow through Rand. Too painful.
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. Sal, thanks, the Novell bit was indeed interesting, especially given the timing. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! |
