Microsoft investigations hit fevered pitch www5.zdnet.com
And as some wag has been known to say in the past, it couldn't happen to a nicer company. This is a pretty long winded article, the excerps are for amusement as usual.
"We took this action today for three reasons," Attorney General Janet Reno told reporters on Oct. 20. "To enforce the earlier court order, to prevent Microsoft from protecting and expanding its Windows PC OS monopoly by anti-competitive means, and, most importantly, to ensure that consumers will have the ability to choose among competing software products."
And that was that. Not only was there no mention of a wider effort, the complaint itself hung from a settlement that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates described as a "nothing." William Neukom, Microsoft's senior vice president for law and corporate affairs, called the complaint "just a matter of interpreting straightforward language in a consent decree."
Four months later, few in Washington, D.C., believe that line anymore.
That's what happens when you give a cop the finger. What did Bill expect?
Microsoft Chief Operating Officer Robert Herbold argues there is no "tying" at all, since the "two" products are, in fact, one. But some of Microsoft's defenders shy away from that argument. Cato Institute fellow Robert Levy, a longtime critic of antitrust laws, said Microsoft is disingenuous when it claims it alone has caused two products suddenly to be one. "I'm much more comfortable arguing we shouldn't have antitrust laws at all," he said.
As are many here. Write your representatives, I say. Of course on the consistency issue nobody will ever accuse the Microphiles of having small minds, so the "integrated product" defense, also known as the Chrysler car radio, holds too. Also the "beyond the comprehension of mere mortals" defense, aka "compliance with a raised middle finger. I hear Bill directed that last line of defense himself.
Given current law, he said he believes the DOJ will almost certainly win a tying case brought over Microsoft's integration of OS and browser.
Courts have long ruled it is illegal for dominant companies to run smaller companies out of business through predatory pricing.
That was the Cato guy talking. In case you were wondering how that last could possibly apply to Microsoft, it's time for the canonical quote again.
When the discussion turned to Netscape, one Intel executive, who asked not to be identified, recalled Maritz saying: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free." (from nytimes.com;
On last bit from the original article:
Pricing arguments invariably get down to the marginal cost of producing another copy of any product, Lande said. Since Microsoft and Netscape alike can produce just one more copy for next to nothing, he said, giving browsers away may not move a court looking at the practice.
Reback countered that all isn't as it appears. Microsoft, in fact, is "recouping" its price cut, he said, noting that after it began giving away its browser, the company raised the price of Windows 95 by $10 to $80. "It's not truly free" from Microsoft's perspective, since it raised prices unilaterally - a classic symptom of monopoly power, he said.
What? Microsoft raised prices? In the face of increasing volume? That can't happen! Bill told us so himself!
Funny thing is, Microsoft settle on terms it probably could have got at the time the original action started, and nobody thinks it means much, then or now. A lot of people seem to have gotten more pissed off in the intervening months though. Got to complement Bill on his legal strategy.
Cheers, Dan. |
