Hal, I've read the first couple of pages of the US DOJ Complaint in US vs. Microsoft. My take: The Federal premise upon which the lawsuit is based is bogus. It's based on pie-in-the-sky theory, and backed up by sub-theories and assumptions which contradict each other. There is no possible way a judge that could make a decision which would "remedy" the supposed "damage" that the suit claims Microsoft has caused. We'll have to take these things one at a time.
To preface, here again is the link to the Federal case:
usdoj.gov
Preface number two is that the States may have a better time of it if they instead go for the Office 97 "pay-per-machine" deals, which offer the software at a "significant" discount than pay-per-copy. Incidently, Microsoft says that "many state and federal agencies have taken advantage of these pay-per-machine deals. :-) Isn't that sweet.
Now on to the Fed DOJ case. I excerpt here points 7 thru 17, which lays out the various interwoven and contradictory theories by which we are supposed to come to some conclusion. What that conclusion is that we are supposed to arrive at, is not clear. My comments in bold.
7. Internet browsers pose a competitive threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly in two basic ways. First, as discussed above, one of the most important barriers to the entry and expansion of potential competitors to Microsoft in supplying PC operating systems is the large number of software applications that will run on the Windows operating system (and not on other operating systems). If application programs could be written to run on multiple operating systems, competition in the market for operating systems could be revitalized. [note use of words "if" and "could"]The combination of browser technology and a new programming language known as "Java" hold out this promise. [the "silver bullet". Java has been out for how long now?] Java is designed in part to permit applications written in it to be run on different operating systems. As such, it threatens to reduce or eliminate one of the key barriers to entry protecting Microsoft's operating system monopoly. [key weakness in premise: Microsoft was not only granted a license from Sun to use Java, but Microsoft improved it so that it has been recently given, after reviews of various Java versions, the "most compatible" designation (most compatible with the various versions out there of this "platformless language") by a technical computing magazine. In other words, you would be hard-pressed to try to prove that Microsoft is afraid of Java.]
8. Non-Microsoft browsers are perhaps the most significant vehicle for
distribution of Java technology to end users. [Really? News to me. How does this work? Maybe some of you Netscape users could enlighten me on your Java distribution activities.] Microsoft has recognized that the widespread use of browsers other than its own threatens to increase the distribution and use of Java, and in so doing threatens Microsoft's operating system monopoly. [Oh! That must be why Microsoft has devoted resources to help promote the Java language] For this reason, a presentation to Microsoft CEO Bill Gates on January 5, 1997, on how to respond to the Java threat emphasized "Increase IE share" as a key strategy. (MS7 005529-44). [I confess I missed hearing this signal event.]
9. Second, Microsoft recognized that Netscape's browser was itself a "platform" to which many applications were being written [Hey guys and gals! Get this! Netscape wants to integrate word processing and spreadsheet functions into your browser! Bet you didn't know that did you? The "silver bullet" at your service.]-- and to which (if it thrived) ["if it thrived" -- again I ask, Java has been around for how long now? Is it illegal to code in Java or what? Anybody know?] more and more applications would be written. Since Netscape's browser could be run on any PC operating system, [pardon me to interject yet again. But how many PC operating systems is there, anyway? Isn't it true that MS-Office is written for the "biggies" already anyway? And isn't it true that Microsoft could certainly, if it wanted, write MS-Office in Java? Corel is coming out with a Java version of their Suite. Maybe it's out already. So this thing that Corel is coming out with looks like it's the very thing that the DOJ is pinning it's hopes on. What I mean is, the market has evidently allowed this to happen. In spite of Microsoft.] the success of this alternative platform also threatened to reduce or eliminate a key barrier protecting Microsoft's operating system monopoly. This is the threat that Microsoft's CEO Bill Gates referred to as the threat that Netscape would "commoditize" the operating system. [In summary, I would expect that Corel's new Java Suite, in a single version, runs on OS/2, Sun's Solaris, Linux, and Apple's OS8.1., among others, including Win 3.1 and Win95. Right? Somebody help me out here. I'm not really up to speed on this. But from the premise..er rather the promise of Java as neatly summed up by the DOJ earlier in this complaint, I would think that I'm not too far off base by making this presumption.]
10. To respond to the competitive threat posed by Netscape's browser, Microsoft embarked on an extensive campaign to market and distribute Microsoft's own Internet browser, which it named "Internet Explorer" or "IE." Microsoft executives have described this campaign as a "jihad" to win the "browser war." [*gasp*! Did you catch that? A jihad! These Microsoft people must be terrorists!]
11. Because of its resources and programming technology, Microsoft was well positioned to develop and market a browser in competition with Netscape. Indeed, continued competition on the merits between Netscape's Navigator and Microsoft's Internet Explorer would have resulted in greater innovation and the development of better products at lower prices. Moreover, in the absence of Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, [Hey now. Wait one cotton pickin' minute. So far the worst thing Microsoft seems actually guilty of is for Bill Gates to say in a meeting that he wants Microsoft to "Increase IE share", as the DOJ said earlier. I guess that's now anticompetitive conduct. Sheesh. These guys are strict.] the offsetting advantages of Microsoft's size and dominant position in desktop software and Netscape's position as the browser innovator and the leading browser supplier, and the benefit to consumers of product differentiation [Wait a minute. What product are they talking about? Netscape Navigator, which is going to be a whole 'nother platform? Excuse me, but I want to do spreadsheeting, and Netscape Navigator won't let me do that yet. So I haven't been deprived of anything. And if I did want NN, I certainly can go buy it, or simply order an HP Kayak or a Sony Vaio, both machines of which have NN preloaded at the factory.], could have been expected to sustain competition on the merits between these companies, and perhaps others that have entered and might enter the browser market.
12. Microsoft, however, has not been willing simply to compete on the merits. For example, as Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer wrote in February 1997, Microsoft concluded that it would "be very hard to increase browser share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator." (MS7 004346). [oh right....Is the DOJ now the word police? They sound like paranoid schizophrenics to me.]
Thus, Microsoft began, and continues today, a pattern of anticompetitive practices designed to thwart browser competition on the merits, to deprive customers of a choice between alternative browsers, and to exclude Microsoft's Internet browser competitors.[LOL...yeah so there!! We'll explain it all later, but for now, just believe us!]
13. Microsoft's conduct with respect to browsers is a prominent and immediate example of the pattern of anticompetitive practices undertaken by Microsoft with the purpose and effect of maintaining its PC operating system monopoly and extending that monopoly to other related markets. [Wait a minute. Up there prior to item 7, (see link) the DOJ stated that a dominant OS was the only practical thing because "consumers want a variety of applications to choose from", and the only way you get that is to have more people working on apps for a dominant OS. So now the DOJ in item 13 is trying to tell us that maintaining that dominant market share i.e. monopoly, is evidently a bad thing. "purpose and effect of maintaining...extending. Why don't they make up their mind. Is a dominant OS good or bad? This is contradictory.]
14. Initially, Microsoft attempted to eliminate competition from Netscape by seeking an express horizontal agreement not to compete. [We're supposed to take this whole thing as fact. But actually Bill Gates has denied this, and explained what contact they did have. I suspect that Netscape and the DOJ could easily be imagining things going on that weren't going on. But hey, we'll presume that the DOJ has PROOF of this meeting, and PROOF that this dubious scheme was in fact presented as described here.] In May 1995, Microsoft executives met with top Netscape personnel in an attempt to induce Netscape not to compete with Microsoft and to divide the browser market, with Microsoft becoming the sole supplier of browsers for use with Windows 95 and successor operating systems and with Netscape becoming the sole supplier of browsers for operating systems other than Windows 95 or its successors. Netscape refused to participate in Microsoft's illegal scheme.
15. Having failed simply to stop competition by agreement, [the DOJ on a roll now]Microsoft set about to exclude Netscape and other browser rivals from access to the distribution, promotion, and resources they needed to offer their browser products to OEMs and PC users pervasively enough to facilitate the widespread distribution of Java or to facilitate their browsers becoming an attractive programming platform in their own right. [Bwaahhhhaahaha! So there!]
16. First, Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars [Huh? Is it against the law to have 100s of millions of dollars? If it is, I'm suing the government] to develop, test, and promote Internet Explorer, a product which it distributes without separate charge. [Can you believe it! The nerve! Giving something away for free! pssssstttt. Hey. I wonder if the DOJ has read Netscape's IPO prospectus. I wonder if the DOJ knows that this was precisely Netscape's game plan: To give away the client side of their browser FOR FREE!] As Paul Maritz, Microsoft's Group Vice President in charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in the New York Times as telling industry executives: "We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free." [as a consumer, I'd like to state for the record that I am ALL FOR this idea! Give it all free, every bit! Sounds great!] As reported in the Financial Times, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates likewise warned Netscape (and other potential Microsoft challengers) in June 1996: "Our business model works even if all Internet software is free. . . . We are still selling operating systems. What does Netscape's business model look like? Not very good." [Gee, how ominous. Probably part of the Jihad, to make ominous statements. When you think about it, Bill Gates is probably the first CEO ever to make comments in regards to his "competition." (Bill considers Netscape to be a viable competitor. *throat clearing sound* from me)]
17. But Mr. Gates did not stop at free distribution. Rather, Microsoft purposefully set out to do whatever it took to make sure significant market....blah blah blah..I lost interest at this point. Kinda entertaining though, for awhile.
|
