Month, Kevin? It'll take longer than that, with the fairly clear conflict between the trial judge and the DC circuit Chicago School crowd, I wouldn't take any rulings as final till it gets to the Supreme Court. And no predictions there, either.
The government contends that Microsoft holds a monopoly in the market for personal computer operating systems -- with more than a 90 percent share -- and has leveraged that to take over other markets. Microsoft denies that it holds a monopoly.
Just a really, really big market share and a lot of power, which it would never dream of abusing. On the "fertile field" of Windows programming, looks like absolute power to me, but that couldn't be the least bit corrupting, could it?
One of the key issues in the case is whether Microsoft rewrote its software -- folding its Internet Explorer Web browser into its Windows 98 operating system -- merely to gain a competitive advantage over Netscape Communications Corp. (NSCP - news) (NSCP.O).
Antitrust laws prohibit monopolies from bundling two different products in order to force the combined product on consumers. But combinations are legal when they provide improvements for consumers that would not otherwise be available.
During the court hearing, Jackson repeatedly asked Microsoft's Warden whether Microsoft had improved the products by combining them.
''What advantage is there from having Microsoft integrate Windows and Internet Explorer?'' Jackson asked at one point.
Warden explained that the same computer code provided Web browsing capabilities and many other functions.
Yes, other functions such as Active Desktop, simplifying everybody's Windows Experience by giving them 8 ways of doing everything instead of the old 4 ways. But the "customers" should be happy, the old Mac-style interface is still there. For a while, it looked like it was going to disappear, all in the interest of "killing Netscape once and for all". Oops, that wasn't the reason for "integrated IE", it was a really good idea to fold all that code into Windows. Makes it more reliable, and faster too! It's what the customers want! Innovation!
Sarcasm aside, and to Mr. gasparich and others, I certainly don't prejudge the legal outcome here. The "Chicago School" "consumer" theory has plenty of advocates on the federal bench. And that has nothing to do with politics, either (oops, more sarcasm, I have to give my usual nod to Orrin Hatch, still on probation for his careful shepherding of all those Reagan era idealogues into their current jobs, and blocking the less pure appointments of the current administration). And, the "consumer" moniker makes perfect sense here, no conflict at all with the politics behind UCC article 2B. Hearts and minds level, which is mostly what I look for, there seems to be a certain contradiction between the "great software" Microsoft that polls show the people love, and the no holds barred competitor the investors love. Or maybe that's just the hobgoblins in my small mind again.
Cheers, Dan. |
