NYT stories of the day:
Holidays are traditionally slow news days. I assume these are stories that couldn't quite find a place in the day-to-day breaking news. Interesting and timely background, nothing earth shattering.
Netscape Plays It Cool as Rival Microsoft Comes Under Attack nytimes.com
Netscape officials do not want to be perceived as "whiners," Barksdale said. That would play into Microsoft's contention that the lawsuits will not help consumers but will merely bail out a handful of competitors that cannot hold their own in the marketplace.
I'd say "whiner" is a pretty subjective classification anyway. It's one thing to ask for enforcement of antitrust when your air supply is being cut off by "free software", or imitative integrated innovative software, as the case may be. It's another thing to complain about antitrust action against the country's most valuable monopoly. "We must be free to imitate". I haven't seen Netscape buying newspaper ads lately asking how competition is supposed to work when the local ruthless cutthroat monopolist sets the market price to zero.
Netscape and the Justice Department say the suit looks at Netscape's plight only as a case study of broader practices by Microsoft. Still, the perception is spreading that Netscape needs the government.
"There is an increasing perception in Silicon Valley that Netscape is the computer equivalent of a welfare mother, totally dependent on government intervention," said Roger McNamee, general partner of Integral Capital Partners, an investment group in Menlo Park, Calif. That could make the company complacent when, he said, its destiny is actually in its own hands.
Poor Netscape, former high flyer, now poster child for antitrust enforcement. No, it's not a business positive.
An even more unfavorable perception, raised in numerous industry publications, is that Netscape might not be able to survive on its own. Calling attention to a government lawsuit that quotes a Microsoft executive vowing to "cut off the air supply" to Netscape could scare off big corporate customers, which are generally reluctant to depend on software from a company they fear will not be around for the long haul.
That's the whole point of FUD, of course. And who's the world's foremost purveyor of FUD these days? And days past, of course, at least back to Steve Bartko. Meanwhile, on to my old favorite topic.
U.S. Suit Says Microsoft Tries to Blunt Java Language's Success nytimes.com
And who in the world could argue with that? In this context, everything is arguable, of course.
Quoting internal Microsoft e-mail messages tinged with profanity and hostile intent, the Justice Department papers discuss Microsoft's plans for blunting the success of Sun's Java programming language.
Dang, I missed the profanity. The hostile intent has been pretty obvious from the beginning.
Maritz went on to explain that it was "necessary to fundamentally blunt Java momentum" in order "to protect our core asset Windows."
Adding its own commentary, the Justice Department memo stated, "In short, Microsoft feared and sought to impede the development of network effects that cross-platform technology like Netscape Navigator and Java might enjoy and use to challenge Microsoft's monopoly."
Referring to another internal Microsoft planning document, the government memorandum said, the goal cited under the heading "Strategic Objective" was to "kill cross-platform Java by growing the polluted Java market."
In a footnote, the memo states, "As used in Microsoft documents, the term 'polluted' appears to refer to Java implementations that can only work with Windows."
A September 1997 e-mail message, sent by a Microsoft official identified as P. Sridharan, is quoted as saying: "Let's move on and steal the Java language. That said, have we ever taken a look at how long it would take Microsoft to build a cross-platform Java that did work? Naturally, we would never do it, but it would give us some idea of how much time we have to work with in killing Sun's Java."
William Neukom, Microsoft's senior vice president for legal affairs, has characterized the Justice Department's practice of plucking quotes from many thousands of documents that Microsoft supplied to the government as "trial by excerpt."
Right, those email excerpts are totally inconsistent with what casual observers might conclude from following the story day to day. Microsoft only wanted to "improve" Java, to make the world a better place. Once put in the correct "context" by the innovative Microsoft legal team, a totally different story will emerge. Do you think the ever-elusive "context" of the Mind of Reg(TM) is available?
And anyway, even if they were sabotaging Java, what's wrong with that? Hi Sal. On to remedies:
'Baby Softs'? Imagining a Breakup of Microsoft 'Baby Softs'? Imagining a Breakup of Microsoft nytimes.com
Here, the Gerald Lampton view of the world is argued. I'd say that in the crybaby whining department Bill and co. have already proved themselves champions in the "Baby Soft" department, but that's subjective. "It's so unfair. We've done nothing wrong. We must be free to imitate!".
In the end, defining the components, and the boundaries, of the software industry will be necessary to level the playing field for Microsoft's competitors and to create a foundation for the future of digital commerce. Rather than cutting incremental deals with Microsoft about specific products and practices, the government should ask: In what areas are there companies that want to compete? Where are competitors being unfairly stopped by an existing monopoly -- or where might that monopoly unfairly stop them in the future -- and where and how do we draw the line?
"The worst thing would be a settlement agreement with Microsoft," said a prominent Silicon Valley lawyer who contends that the federal and state governments have not gone far enough in their lawsuits. "There needs to be a bright line drawn that can't be interpreted through wordsmithing," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"If there are ambiguities on a piece of paper, Microsoft will just do what they want and argue later about the paper. The government needs to say: 'These are the places where you cannot go. Don't go there!"'
That couldn't be Gary Reback could it? Regardless, he's got a good point. We have the "binding precedent" of Anne Bingaman's meaningless consent decree as exibit A. Of course, that one proved Microsoft "was not a monopoly", right Reggie?
Finally, and briefly,
Coverage of Microsoft by Microsoft nytimes.com
"In crafting its suit against Microsoft, the Justice Department made two smart public relations decisions and one serious blunder," wrote William Saletan, a Microsoft contributor, in a piece posted Tuesday of last week, the day after the long-discussed and debated antitrust suit was filed.
"But it isn't clear," he added, "whether Microsoft can transcend its martyr complex and self-absorption to take advantage of the error."
"We are the world, we are the whining crybaby children." I think Saletan wrote my old favorite Slate article deconstructing the top ten PR lines. I believe he picked the "We must be free to imitate, er, innovate" one as the winner too. I got to see if I can dig that one up.
Cheers, Dan. |
