A Day of Hostile Questions in Microsoft Trial nytimes.com
To go with a certain amount of hostility locally, I guess. This "natural monopoly" business again assumes a monopoly in the first place. Legally, this seems like a dubious proposition for Microsoft to assert. Back to that later.
Michael Lacovara, the Microsoft lawyer who questioned Frederick Warren-Boulton for a third day Tuesday, at one point referred him to a treatise that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates had written in 1996 about the Internet and personal computers.
"Microsoft's approach is to make Windows so Internet friendly that no one will want a separate browser," Gates wrote. "Our goal is to meld the best of the PC with the best of the Web, creating a single world of great promise."
When Lacovara asked Warren-Boulton if he had any problem with that, the witness said the result would be "a world of great promise -- to Microsoft."
Yes. Before the internet, the vision was MSN in the AOL mold, but tightly tied to the Windows monopolistic death grip. Since then, Bill's had to devote all his energies to subverting the open internet by all means possible. As far as I can tell, the dreaded browser/OS "integration" is not much liked by anyone. But that's somewhat to be expected, it wasn't driven by technical need or consumer desire, it was just part of the air supply operation.
Warren-Boulton is an important witness in the sense that the government wants him to lay the factual foundation for the its case -- that Microsoft is in fact a monopoly, meaning that the antitrust laws do apply.
Which is where the "natural monopoly" thing gets sticky.
Microsoft's approach appears to be to challenge him in so many areas that he will end up making one or two statements, inadvertently or otherwise, that Microsoft can use against him.
As opposed to the mountain of email Bill can't remember, or the revisionist history that has Bill on top of the internet since '94, or was it '92? Looks like the old shotgun defense to me.
Once again, America Online's acquisition of Netscape Communications worked its way into the trial. Microsoft eagerly asserted that the deal was sufficient grounds for the government to drop its lawsuit.
To that, David Boies, the government's lead attorney said: "That's about the sixth time during this trial that Microsoft has declared that the government's case is dead. The government has no intention to withdraw the case, and I think Microsoft knows that."
And I have no idea why the government should withdraw the case. The AOL thing has been touted here, too, for the same reason, and with about the same amount of logic behind the assertion. I guess it's the next edition of the Chrysler car radio, or Marc Andreeson's fantastical invention, or the nefarious international ilk conspiracy, Microsoft setup division.
As is often the case the Times story ends with a funny bit of irony.
In his eagerness to embrace the deal as part of Microsoft's defense, Lacovara overstepped at one point, asking a question based on the assertion that Sun Microsystems, Microsoft's arch competitor, would, as Lacovara put it, acquire Netscape's Web browser as part of the transaction.
Startled by that, Jackson leaned forward in his chair and asked, "Is that really the case?"
Lacovara assured him that it was. "It was reported on MSNBC this morning," he explained.
But it was inaccurate. As part of the three-way deal, Sun Microsystems will distribute Netscape's business-level server software for three years. America Online will maintain control of Netscape's Web browser.
How strange that MSNBC would get it wrong. How odd that a Microsoft lawyer would cite MSNBC as an authoritative source. How nice it would be if Bill took the stand in his own defense, to show us all what a brilliant guy he really is, he could explain all this stuff in no time.
Cheers, Dan. |
