Microsoft antitrust woes mounting seattletimes.com
That piece from the hometown rag, no less.
Murray said that it would have been difficult for Microsoft to bully Intel, given how big a player it is in the computer industry.
One would hope so, but apparently one would hope in vain.
The Intel-Microsoft confrontation over NSP in 1995 was closely followed in the industry. A year later, in lengthy dialogue between Grove and Gates, published in Fortune magazine as "A Conversation with the Lords of Wintel," the two men discussed the matter.
Gates said, "Intel deserves a lot of credit for stepping back."
Grove replied, "We didn't have much of a choice. We basically caved."
Gates objected to that characterization, but Grove stuck to his line. "We caved," the Intel chairman said. "Introducing a Windows-based software initiative that Microsoft doesn't support . . . well, life is too short for that." (quoted in nytimes.com
So, who do you believe, Bill "Don't be paranoid" Gates or Andy "Only the paranoid survive" Grove? Back to the highly credible Mr. Murray:
"We have a strong and positive business relationship with Intel," Murray said. "Intel is a much stronger company than Microsoft. We work to make sure our technologies operate well together. That is good for consumers."
And blah blah blah. It seems Andy Grove would find this characterization suspect, but what would he know? Then we have the Apple Quicktime deal:
Industry sources indicate that Microsoft saw the alleged offer as an attempt to make Microsoft's version of the technology the "industry standard" for playing sound and video over the Internet, but Apple viewed it as a request that the company abandon one of its most successful and promising lines of software.
Microsoft spokesman Murray said no market-division attempt occurred.
No, of course not. How much market would there be to divide after Bill relegated Quicktime to history's junkheap?
"Our discussions with Apple on streaming media technologies are the kinds of positive discussions that happen every day in the high-tech industry where companies outline their respective technologies and work together to ensure that their technologies will operate well together for consumers," Murray said.
Oh, of course. Everything Microsoft does is good for consumers. It's what the customers want! Nobody wants an OS that sucks less, they just want Bill to fulfill his manifest destiny and rule the world.
A spokeswoman for Apple declined to address the issue except to say that the two companies still have an amicable working relationship though they might have some "disagreements" on antitrust issues.
Finally, on to Bill's good buddy Glaser:
Government attorneys also are preparing to allege that Microsoft violated antitrust laws by insisting in a contract with RealNetworks that the maker of audio-video software not share technological information with Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft paid RealNetworks $30 million for access to its technology.
The allegation, if true, could pose more troubles for Microsoft unless the company "can provide a convincing, factually supported efficiency explanation of why exclusivity is necessary," according to Herb Hovenkamp, a University of Iowa antitrust-law expert.
Well, as Ronald Reagan said, facts are stupid things. I forget the Donahoe variation.
Meanwhile, the good gray Times picks up the story, not much new except for another "compelling" Microsoft response.
U.S. May Seek to Expand Evidence in Microsoft Case nytimes.com
"The Justice Department and the states are casting around, trying to figure out what they are going to do with their case," said Charles Rule, a partner of Covington & Burling in Washington and a former senior official in the Justice Department, who is an adviser to Microsoft. "They seem to be arguing that Netscape somehow fits into this larger tableau that they are trying to paint."
Always good to hear from our old friend Charles "Rick" Rule, an objective source if there ever was one. He forgot to mention how it's all good for consumers, too. He's got his point of view. My naive understanding was that the old consent decree case was over, and this was a new, broader action, but Bill seems to disagree. I get confused. Bill's old favorite, The Economist seems to share my confusion about whether this is a different case or not:
However, Bill Gates should hesitate before he pops the champagne. Whether or not Microsoft indulged in "tying" is not the key point at issue in the broader case. True, that question matters because the DoJ believes that Microsoft has used tying as a tactic to maintain its market power. More important, though, is whether, as a monopolist, Microsoft has behaved in a way that is inconsistent with its legal responsibilities. The appeals court did not deal with this charge. Mr Gates, writing in The Economist two weeks ago, also dodged the issue. Yet the evidence, much of it in the form of emails sent by Microsoft employees, is disturbing. (from economist.com./editorial/freeforall/microsoft_case/ld5082.html)
Of course, those Economist guys are all a bunch of Thatcherite Tory Communists, obviously an inferior breed compared to Bill's preferred school of commie thought. They probably didn't understand about how little the "junior executives" like Maritz, Cole, Ballmer rate compared to Bill and secret #2 J Allard.
Cheers, Dan. |
