Can Microsoft be trusted?

By Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.

Microsoft agreed with a consent decree. Then what happened?

Microsoft signed a license agreement with Sun. Then what happened?

If you think the DOJ should just be happy to get a settlement or another consent decree from Microsoft, think again. Microsoft has proven to everyone that it will stretch any agreement as far as it can in an effort to invalidate its intended purpose. And Microsoft will never voluntarily abide by the antitrust laws much less the fair competition laws of the various States in which they do business.

Sure, the court could come up with a list of things that Microsoft could be required to do. But, that short list would be meaningless. Microsoft will just skirt around them and continue to abuse the industry as well as its own customers. (Hint: Forcing all of your customers to buy unwanted major applications qualifies as financial abuse or financial harm.)

Personally, I am entertaining a web page just for a debate about the possible remedies. Just how should Microsoft be split up? Horizontally or vertically, or both? Which solution will assure that OEMs, consumers and the rest of the industry are not further harmed by the monopolistic practices of Microsoft Corporation?

Has Microsoft conceded that they will loose the case? Of course not. And, they will appeal anyway. But, making adjustments to the computer industry to avoid the present harm caused by Microsoft is no small matter. It will require everyone to think about it a while.

Do we want a regulated industry? Do we want the FTC to propose a whole series of regulations regarding what a computer company can and can not do? Or, do we just want the court to exercise its authority to restructure the industry and allow it to proceed with true, open and fair competition?

Personally, I support only the latter suggestion. Selling the 95/98 code base to 5 or 6 industry players (including one spin off from Microsoft itself) would do wonders in preventing any one company from abusing anyone else (I.E. OEMs, consumers or other companies). NT might also have to be sold to multiple players. (I just wonder which companies would submit bids?)

Think about it. Do you want innovative companies to be limited to dealing with just one company or no company at all? Or, should true, open and fair competition be established in the industry? Think about all of the innovative ideas that can be developed if those who have these ideas can go to more than just one company for support and cooperation. Microsoft has proven with its relationship with RealNetworks that it can damage or almost eliminate anyone else from the market if it decides to do so. Also recall Stac, Caldera, Bristol, Sun, Apple, Netscape, Lantastic and even IBM when considering the way that Microsoft seeks to directly harm competitors.

The computer industry is overflowing with stories about how major companies foster the growth of new and upcoming products and corporations. Both IBM and HP helped Microsoft when it was very young. Today, IBM helps Sun by adopting and supporting the Java environment. This is what the industry should be known for doing.

Microsoft on the other hand suppresses innovation anytime it is not its own and does everything it can think of to preclude products from being successful if it does not own them. The browser from Netscape and Java from Sun are just the latest examples. Microsoft's history is full of products and companies harmed directly by Microsoft's business practices. Developing better products and marketing them fairly is not where the problem is. The problem is in Microsoft's business practices. And, those practices are not going to be controlled by the court and should not be controlled by a regulatory agency.

The court can act but the court can not and should not run the existing Microsoft Corporation.

Lewis A. Mettler, Esq