SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : MSFT (Microsoft) vs. DOJ (Department of Justice)
MSFT 516.91-0.2%Nov 3 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Doug Fowler who wrote (157)2/5/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson  Read Replies (1) of 185
 
Buggy Video and More, Microsoft Is Going Backward

Justice spotlights more tape discrepancies and sows new doubts about Redmond's motives

Business Week Online

It was another no-good, very bad day in court for Microsoft Corp. on Feb. 3. Fresh on the heels of embarrassingly
confused videotape evidence that left Microsoft's lawyers in a lurch, the Justice Dept. seemed to score more points
on two critical issues in its antitrust case. By the end of the day, the government had raised new doubts about
Microsoft's reasons for merging browser technology into its Windows 98 operating system, as well as about that
videotape presented in court on Feb. 2 that company lawyers hoped would be a key part of their defense.

With Microsoft Senior Vice-President James E. Allchin back on the stand, the government introduced a series of
Microsoft E-mails that seemed to bolster its contention that beating browser rival Netscape was a key
consideration in the decision to integrate Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer, into Windows 98. In a Mar. 21,
1997, E-mail Allchin received from a colleague named Jonathan Roberts, Roberts said Internet Explorer has a far
better chance of besting Netscape if it's integrated into Windows. "An integrated browser makes Netscape a
nonissue -- a superfluous product for all but the most committed Netscape user," Roberts said.

Allchin himself wrote that integration would be critical in the competition with Netscape. In early 1997, he wrote
that he was troubled by Microsoft's strategy of simply copying Netscape features and predicted that such a path
was doomed to failure. "I am convinced we have to use Windows," he wrote. "It's the one thing they don't have."
The most critical issue, he said, was to include an integrated browser on shipments to computer makers so that
"Netscape never gets a chance on these systems."

The company has insisted that it merged the two programs to benefit consumers. And it says it came up with the
idea as early as 1993, before Netscape was founded.

FASTER "FELTENIZED"? The government also is trying to show that the operating system and browser could
be sold separately and that there's no benefit to merging them. A government consultant, Edward W. Felten of
Princeton University, wrote a software program intended to demonstrate that the two could be separated even at
this late date. But Microsoft countered with a videotape demonstration of a "Feltenized" computer that was
supposed to show that the Felten program degraded the operation of Windows.

But on cross-examination on Feb. 3, Justice lawyer David Boies challenged the accuracy of the videotaped
demonstration. And at the noon recess on Feb. 3, government experts scrutinized the tape more closely and alleged
even more discrepancies. At times on the videotape, an icon was present and at other times it disappeared. The
title bar at the top of the computer screen also showed different words at different times. At one point, instead of
degrading Windows, it seemed as if the computer with the Felten program actually worked faster.

Eventually, Allchin admitted that more than one computer was used during the videotaping, though the tape seemed
designed to leave the impression that it showed one continuous demonstration with one computer. The Internet
Explorer segment that seemed to run more slowly than a Feltenized computer actually was a Feltenized computer,
Microsoft officials said, but they had run Prodigy, which changed the wording on the text bar. There was no
indication on the tape that Prodigy had been used. "We make very good software," sighed Microsoft Senior
Vice-President for Law and Corporate Affairs William Neukom. "We don't make a very good tape."

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said Microsoft's actions "cast doubt on the reliability" of the tape. The company
said it would make another demonstration tape with government officials present, and it asked that the new tape be
played in court on Thursday, Feb. 4. While MSVideo 1.0 was clearly a flop, Microsoft is banking heavily that
MSVideo 2.0 will save the day.

By Stan Crock in Washington
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext