December 31, 1998 - Thursday
11:10 AM PST - Bristol fails to get preliminary injunction against Microsoft.
This lack of getting an injunction is not too surprising. Bristol needs to show that Microsoft maintains monopoly power in the NT marketplace. NT does compete with Linux, OS/2, Unix and a number of proprietary operating systems (HP-MPE, AS/400, etc.). Bristol also has the extra burden of proving (for the purpose of the preliminary injunction) that an immediate remedy (even if temporary) is necessary. While there is little doubt that Bristol's business may be affected by the spat with Microsoft, Bristol may not be successful in requiring Microsoft to offer better terms than they have. In other words, if you do not hold monopoly power in a given marketplace then a company can price themselves out of a deal if they want to.
What will be interesting about the Bristol case however, is that Microsoft has announced a common code base for the old NT and Windows 95 product lines. And, Bristol will have no problem showing a monopoly in the consumer OS market. When Microsoft combines its product lines (finally) it could affect its ability to deal with other companies without being classified as a monopoly all the time. To put it another way, Bristol may be able to force Microsoft to deal more fairly with the consumer OS code base. If the code bases are combined, Bristol could be in business.
My guess is that Microsoft is re-evaluating the decision for a single code base. If Microsoft is not split up and only regulated in some fashion, the ability of Microsoft to compete against Unix and other OSs in the enterprise market can be limited to acts permitted by a monopolist. (See the DOJ litigation for more details on those acts and how they prevent competition.)
And, of course, Microsoft will argue in the DOJ case that all operating systems including those in the enterprise marketplace should be considered in defining the appropriate market for antitrust purposes. But, in the Bristol case, they will argue that the consumer OS market is no part of the NT market. They will need at least two lawyers for this. The arguments are directly contrary to each other on that point. Microsoft is real good at claiming two technically incompatible statements are both true. They claim IE is an application. And, then they claim it is not. They claim some software is integrated, then distribute it in complete disregard for any integration links. I guess if you are going to present false testimony in court, you might as well do it twice and hope the judge does not figure out that you can not be correct both times. Microsoft claims Java is a threat to it. And, then it claims Java is an inferior product that they just had to fix.
Come to think of it, nothing Microsoft says anymore is creditable.
I really like the line about Microsoft
not using its monopoly power to preclude competition. That line all
but proves the lawyers from Microsoft have no idea what they are doing.
Clearly it proves their public statements can not be considered to reflect
reality. They are just saying things.
8:00 AM PST - What is the real significance of the William H. Harris testimony?
Let me first explain what lawyers do and do not do. First, they never highlight the most damaging testimony offered against them in trial. They hope the judge will not notice it. They intentionally try to avoid drawing undue attention to it. What they do instead is to try to redirect the discussion elsewhere. Once that is understood we can read the testimony from Mr. Harris and put Microsoft's response to this testimony in perspective. (I really laughed about the part where Microsoft says they have never used their monopoly power to control the industry. I guess they skipped reading the Harris testimony. Although, they did claim that Harris does not know why Intuit agreed to the deal with Microsoft. Funny how a company puts a dope on the stand to act like Bill Gates and then claims to know why some other company entered into a agreement with them. Even when the other company testifies in court at to their reasons. I think Microsoft has lost it.)
Paragraph #2 of the William H. Harris direct testimony says "Intuit operates in an industry where Microsoft has substantial power that affects the way we do business, develop and market our products and interact with other participants in the industry. The principal vehicle through which Microsoft has attained and exercised this power is through its dominant desktop OS."
Now, anyone in the industry, and I suspect a high percentage of consumers, would say "so what?". Everyone knows that. And, of course they are correct, everyone does know that. But, in a court of law, some witnesses needs to stand up and say that. Being of common knowledge is of little value if the record maintained by the court does not include testimony to that affect.
But, why is William H. Harris testifying that way? (Actually, several other witnesses have made similar statements.) But, the statement from Mr. Harris is very significant. Why? Because Intuit is the company on the bubble. Intuit is the company that Microsoft would like to remove from the industry next. It is also the company most easily removed from the industry by the same process Microsoft has just used to drive Netscape out of business (I.E. just bundle or give away your version of their products).
So. When the President and CEO of Intuit says that they must do as Microsoft says (see more details in other parts of his testimony and in the detailed discussion below) or risk removal from business, his words come with great creditability. If HE does not know or understand how fragile his business is, no one does. After all, he himself has witnessed the removal of Netscape and was in fact forced to help Microsoft do it. (again, read his testimony)
So. When Microsoft with all their high priced lawyers say that Mr. Harris's testimony "offers no evidence", perk up. That is the testimony you need to pay attention to. That is the testimony Microsoft hopes the judge will not hear.
His testimony goes not only to prove the real power that Microsoft has in the industry but also to prove that Microsoft has and will use that power at will to preclude competition. And, that is precisely what the antitrust laws are designed to prevent. The antitrust laws are designed to protect and ensure that industries have "real competition". The testimony from Mr. Harris proves that Microsoft not only does not have any competition in the consumer OS marketplace but that it also uses its monopoly power to prevent any competition from developing. Microsoft tried to buy Intuit. Failing that, (merger was challenged) it has and will try to remove Intuit from the market as soon as it thinks it can get away with it. See references in Mr. Harris's testimony as to how Microsoft becomes emboldened whenever it thinks the DOJ, SEC or FTC is looking the other way for a minute. This is key testimony. It goes to not only liability but also what kind of remedy is going to be necessary for the court to consider.
Near the end of Mr. Harris's testimony he does suggest a requirement that the OS be neutralized. Well. His suggestion is a very good one. What he is really saying is that the monopoly power of the OS must either be removed or prevented from being exercised. Tightly regulated industries are examples where enormous power held by certain companies is simply kept in check by the regulatory process. If you want to propose the computer software industry be a fully regulated industry I suppose you can do that. I do not find that suggestion having any merit at all. But, if you do not regulate the monopoly power, then you must remove it.
Removing the monopoly power is what this trial is really all about. First it must be shown to exist. Then it must be shown to be used by Microsoft to eliminate, prevent or limit competition. And, then a remedy needs to be fashioned that will prevent such abuse in the future. You need to either regulate it or remove it. (Hint: Judge Jackson himself has already tried to regulate Microsoft with that consent decree. Microsoft even agreed to it then proceeded to completely ignore it, necessitating the current litigation.)
I think the conclusion is that if you do not in fact remove it, then you must regulate it. Just recently IBM has come out of the last bit of its regulation by the courts from the antitrust litigation initiated years ago. Courts are about the worst organization to regulate businesses. The FTC is bad too, but at least they are structured for that purpose. The courts are not. And we all know how Congress messes up just about everything it touches. However, the court does have the power to restructure any defendant found to be in violation of the antitrust laws. It even has the power to undo "ill gotten gains" if it so chooses to exercise it.
Do not ignore the power of the court. And, do not ignore the importance of the Harris testimony. Microsoft's attempt to deflect attention away from it should tell everyone just how significant they themselves think it really is. If they truly thought nothing harmful was contained therein, they would not even bother to respond to it. But, rather than ignore it, they are claiming no facts are presented by the testimony. I guess Microsoft does not consider their enormous monopoly power as worthy of mentioning.
The DOJ does. I do as well.
December 30, 1998 - Wednesday
5:00 PM PST - A closer look at the William H. Harris testimony.
A quick summary of the key points to the William H. Harris direct testimony:
1) The operating system controls what other companies do in the industry. (Paragraph 3)
2) Microsoft controls the premier distribution mechanism for any software application (paragraph 4)
3) Many companies are using the internet to provide products and services. Forcing the sale of IE to all consumers gives Microsoft a monopoly as the gate keeper. (Paragraph 5)
4) Intuit was specifically required not to do business with Netscape. (Paragraph 6)
5) Microsoft has used its desktop to favor IE and in turn is using IE to favor selected Internet services. (Paragraph 7)
6) Microsoft has used the operating system monopoly to prevent Intuit from doing business with Netscape. (Paragraph 8)
7) And, finally Mr. Harris suggests that the only effective remedy will have to require "operating system neutrality". (paragraph 9)
It is very important to understand a simple concept of just what violates the antitrust laws. Any act that either furthers the power of a current monopoly or an act which uses monopoly power to gain a monopoly in another market may be construed as an act in violation of the law. Points 2 through 6 above address this concept directly.
Microsoft claims that little was said in this testimony, but Mr. Harris is in a position to have testified directly to these activities and how they impact competitors in the industry. Intuit is a competitor of Microsoft.
Mr. Harris also points out that restricting OEM's ability to customize the desktop only serves to concentrate the monopoly power held by Microsoft when it achieves dominance. Forcing all consumers to purchase it guarantees dominance. It is only a question of time. (Paragraph 12)
8) Intuit's business depends upon the windows operating system. (Part IV, # 22, et seq.)
This testimony is key simply because all ISVs writing to the Windows platform are also dependent upon the Windows platform. This is why so many of them claim to openly support Microsoft. It is not because they approve of the legal violations (although some may be envious of the ability of Microsoft to force the sale of unwanted products) but rather because they are tied to the success of Microsoft in dominating the market. [What will really be interesting when Microsoft calls their witnesses will be to see how many of them try to suggest this is not the case. That should really be funny testimony. Microsoft might even claim to not dominate the market. You know, something completely unbelievable. ]
Mr. Harris points out that Microsoft has used product bundling to eliminate competitors other than Netscape. (Paragraph 29) Disk defragmentation and disk compression were mention. Peer to peer networking would be another. Both Lantastic and Novell have been seriously hurt by bundling networking services with the OS. Mr. Harris does suggest that Intuit is next on the endangered species list. His testimony suggests that Intuit can do nothing to avoid that either.
9) The Windows Desktop provides unmatched distribution and promotion opportunities. (IV, B; paragraph 31, et seq.).
This is the power that Microsoft can wield in either promoting its own products or selling prime advertising space. This is key testimony if the court is going to consider splitting up Microsoft. If a single company still owns the code base for Windows 2000 this power is retained by that company. It is raw monopoly power. It may be that the only way to prevent this power from being abused is to remove it completely by splitting the company horizontally 6 or 8 times. Then at least to the extent that this power exists, it extends only to a portion of the market and all companies (buyers and sellers) can compete for the right to utilize it.
Because of the obvious value of the desktop space and the natural distribution ability it provides, it may be that only both a vertical and horizontal split will solve the basic problem of one company always being able to take unfair advantage of everyone else in the industry.
10) The Characteristics of the Operating system market make Microsoft's OS unique. (Paragraph #38, et seq.)
This is an important point. As Mr. Harris points out in paragraph #40, Intuit could have a virtual monopoly position with one or two of its products but the ease by which customers could switch is very different for an operating system than for a simple application. As he points out, Money even converts the data into the necessary files for the customer. For the OS, the cost of repurchasing software and possible retraining employees can make an OS switch very expensive. This is the "bubblegum" and "jawbreaker" deal problem. Almost everyone using the Microsoft OS will buy the bubblegum deal rather than switch their OS.
What is really funny is to listen to Microsoft supporters suggesting that anyone can just switch their OS if they do not like the packaging by Microsoft. Anyone who suggests that solution in response to being forced to buy unwanted products is just being dishonest. They are just saying something that they themselves do not even believe. Did you buy the "bubblegum deal"? Or, the "jawbreaker deal". Most Microsoft zealots refuse to answer that question. They know the answer, but do not want to admit it. If you have not seen this discussion, read it. You can decide for yourself just how much unwanted product can be forced upon you simply by bundling it with the OS.
Mr. Harris suggests that if the barriers to a switch are not high then products may have to compete on a price and performance basis. But, when the costs associated with switching an OS are high, that is just not a very feasible option. Again. This is a key point that Microsoft and its supporters falsely represent.
11) The high price for Microsoft operating systems also provides evidence of the absence of effective price competition. (paragraph #44)
The result of not having any competition results in higher prices and higher profit margins. Mr. Harris is correct in concluding that excess profits show the lack of effective competition. This is another reason why Microsoft tries so hard to preclude competitors whenever it can. It has successfully removed Netscape from the scene. It has at least forced Netscape to give away its browser and forgo any revenue stream for ongoing R&D. Microsoft loves to point out the lack of technological development preclude by their illegal acts. Somehow the Microsoft lawyers think that the inability of Netscape to earn revenue that it can use for R&D is a defense for the illegal acts directly causing that result. That suggestion of theirs on that point is beyond being sinister. It is deceitful and dishonest as well as being sinister.
Mr. Harris also testifies that Intuit has been directly impacted by Microsoft's exercise of their OS leverage. (paragraph #47, et Seq.)
a) Win ATM in 94, b) the Active Desktop in 1997, and c) the Start page. Of course Microsoft likes to claim credit for dropping ideas that do not work well like the Channels but refuses to accept the premise that some other companies have rights to compete. No company is as arrogant as Microsoft in that respect. They refuse to acknowledge any rights held by other companies and claim all rights and privileges for themselves whether they exist or not. Whether or not certain acts violate the law also does not seem to ever enter into the picture in this regard.
12) Intuit does fear Microsoft will bundle Money with the OS and wipe out that market as well as the browser market. See paragraph #49 and #50. Mr. Harris is correct to anticipate that they will do precisely that. Microsoft will also bundle the Office suite if not broken up. Also see the quote from Mr. Cook regarding Microsoft not yet seeing the full benefits from their monopoly. (paragraph #51) Microsoft knows they have a monopoly. They act like it. They even boast about it. Until they get in court, that is. Then they only seem to play dumb.
13) Microsoft did plan to bundle a personal financial package. See paragraph #55. No surprise there.
14) Just the thought that Microsoft would bundle Money makes Intuit sign the deal given by Microsoft. (paragraph #59). Of course, Microsoft will give the mantra that superior technology is the only reason anyone does business with Microsoft. That line would be laughable in an advertisement. But, the Microsoft lawyers somehow think it will sell in court. What makes them think that is beyond me, but they apparently do.
15) Bill Gates dictates a one year deal and Intuit must drop Netscape. (paragraph #68). The testimony here proves that Bill Gates himself insisted upon precluded a competitor from a key contract. A one year term is ridiculously short for forcing Intuit to drop a competitor's product. I guess the second year is when Money would just be bundled with the OS and Intuit would be discarded as garbage by Microsoft. Sure sounds like that to me. Total and complete disrespect for other companies.
16) Intuit forced to drop development with the Netscape browser (paragraph 77)
17) Intuit could have used either browser. (paragraph #81)
18) Microsoft waived certain terms of the Active Desktop Agreement when things got hot. (paragraph #87) And, as you recall, Microsoft was certain to claim credit for backing off those restrictive terms while denying any harm caused in the interim. This is just another example of Microsoft reaping the benefits of illegal acts and then claiming to be "choir boy" when caught.
The corrupt culture that Microsoft has is important. It simply means that anything short of complete disassembly of the company and all of its power will only work with an enormous amount of regulatory effort by either the government or continuous litigation in court. If nothing else does it, the need to solve this problem may necessitate the vertical and horizontal split of Microsoft. Nothing short of that will mean a thing.
19) Anything that Microsoft permits can be removed overnight.
(paragraph #91)
Finally, Section VI of the Harris testimony discusses "operating system neutrality". As has been explained above, little short of splitting Microsoft both ways will accomplish "operating system neutrality". You could regulate Microsoft to death. But, that would be a horrible solution.
After reading the testimony from William H. Harris you have to seriously question any comments coming from the lawyers for Microsoft. For them to suggest that nothing of substance is in that testimony is to intentionally mistake obvious facts. Some of this testimony is only an opinion or conclusion on Mr. Harris's part. However, Mr. Harris is clearly qualified to offer those opinions and conclusions as to how the acts of Microsoft affect not only Intuit but the entire computer software industry.
I guess they will just say that Mr. Harris knows little of what he speaks. But, if you read his direct testimony, you will see that almost all of it makes a lot of sense and is very reasonable.
Again, compare the testimony offered by Bill Gates.
2:30 PM PST - A quick review of the upcoming testimony from William H. Harris.
Read the entire direct testimony from William H. Harris. Unless Microsoft is split horizontally and vertically, this testimony accurately describes what the internet will be like over the foreseeable future. The internet will be designed, delivered and controlled by a single company having monopoly power over not only the consumer OS marketplace, the internet browser marketplace but the internet itself. Mr. Harris calls for operating system neutrality. However, this will just not be the case without extensive government regulation or splitting up the company as suggested above.
Microsoft in its reply to this testimony claims that no facts are contained therein. Well. In one sense that may be true. Specific facts are scarce. The testimony does lay out a few terms of the agreement with Microsoft. Those terms simply illustrate what everyone in the computer software industry already knows (with the possible exception of Microsoft employees and attorneys), that Microsoft calls all of the shots. If they want Intuit to stop doing business with Netscape, they only needed to say so. Intuit must comply with that request or risk certain removal from its own market and meet the same fate dished out to Netscape by Microsoft, extinction..
Intuit knows that it only exists at the will of Microsoft. Mr. Harris's testimony lays out the obvious conclusion that if Microsoft bundles Money with the OS in the same manner as it has IE, then Intuit is "history". And, now that Bill Gates has been trained not to use the "bundle" word anymore, he can just say it was "integrated". Intuit is then gone.
It is absolutely amazing that a company like Microsoft (having employed many intelligent people) claims that nothing of substance is said in the William H. Harris testimony. Are we to believe that Microsoft employees and Bill Gates in particular do not understand the basic realities of the consumer OS marketplace? Are we to believe that the attorneys for Microsoft do not understand these issues either?
Maybe Bill Gates ought to read the testimony from William H. Harris. (Maybe he really does not know this?)
If you want to make Microsoft the sole taxing authority for the internet, ignore this testimony. But, do not insult the intelligence of the consumer by suggesting that nothing of merit is being provided by Mr. Harris.
I can not think of anyone in the computer software industry that would not agree completely with this testimony. That includes Bill Gates and all Microsoft employees. It also includes all advisors, consultants and attorneys (including those paid by Microsoft) who deal with technical legal matters. This is very high quality testimony. Why? Because it reflects knowledge, experience and the reality of the industry. Compare with the intelligence displayed by Bill Gates.
This testimony also proves that Netscape was precluded from the market at the specific direction of Bill Gates himself. Of course, everyone already knew that. (I guess the attorneys from Microsoft do not recognize that as a fact either. Maybe they just knew that all along and have accepted it as fact. Just about everyone else has, so they could understand that by now too, I suppose.)
1:15 PM PST - Direct testimony from William H. Harris of Intuit is released.
9:00 AM PST - Microsoft files suit claiming that trademark law gives them some of the same rights they are trying to deny Sun.
Yes, this is a slow week for Microsoft news but this time Microsoft is filing a suit. It seems that someone else is using a domain name that Microsoft thinks only it should have the right to use. I might be inclined to even support Microsoft on this action were it not for the blatant disdain Microsoft has shown for the trademarks of other companies. "Java" is a trademark (application pending) held by Sun. But, Microsoft chose to license it and then proceed to harm its value by an overt act. At this date, that overt act has been decided by a judge to have likely violated numerous laws including those regarding trademarks. Any lawyer familiar with trademark law can easily explain that licensing a trademark and then adopting a business plan to degrade or devalue that very mark with the intent to harm the value of that mark is truly egregious. It also shows how corrupt the culture at Microsoft Corporation really is.
Microsoft has only charged that other persons have registered domain names that contain in part the trademarks of Microsoft. The legal interplay between trademarks and domain names is very much uncertain. For example: Which company has trademarked the word "United"? If you check you will find that the word "United" is part or all of a trademark held by many companies. United Airlines is one. United Parcel Service is another. So. As between the airline and parcel service, who gets "United.com"? Well, actually it fails as a URL. "WWW.united.net" works. But it is a phone company. So should United Airlines file suit against United Telephone? The short answer is that you can almost always file a suit even if it has limited merit. In the "United" example, at least two companies might want to file suit. And, what about "WWW.microsoft.com.tw"? No law in this country (USA) is going to tell Taiwan which domains they can issue and which ones they can not.
In the Microsoft case the two domains of most concern to Microsoft is "microsoftwindows" and "microsoftoffice". Neither of these words are trademarked by Microsoft to my knowledge. The first part of the word is. In the case of "microsoftwindows", "Microsoft" and "Windows" as separate words are trademarked but not concatenated. Often times trademarks that might otherwise be confusing are approved if the trademark is a concatenated word. "Microsoft" is such an example. "Micro" and "soft" are two words which by themselves would most likely be denied as valid trademarks. They are simply generic or descriptive by themselves. Combined however, they have qualified as a trademark.
An interesting question which will not be addressed by this litigation is whether "microsoftwindows" could be trademarked by someone other than Microsoft. Certainly Microsoft would object and most likely could preclude a trademark as such for that word. However, no laws directly control domain names. There are some general guidelines in effect, but these guidelines are in the process of being changed and are not likely to be codified in any law anyway. The internet is truly world wide so it is very unlikely that even the Federal Government of the United States could legislate a set of rules that would apply or could be enforced. Anyone could just fire up a domain in Taiwan and use "WWW.Microsoft.com.tw". Maybe Microsoft can afford to hire attorneys to file a suit in Taiwan and every other country as this "guy" jumps around the globe getting neat domain names. Most companies can not. And, for trademark purposes, it is a real problem. And, it is not likely to have a solution. Countries on this earth have not even been able to agree to universal use of radio frequencies. The last space shuttle experienced radio interference from a country in South America as I recall. No country would want to interfere with the space shuttle communications but there is just no world wide authority to prevent it. Same with domain names.
And, of course, you must keep in mind that sometimes the company with the most hired lawyers wins regardless of merit. Neither can you assume that a plaintiff will win just because they filed suit nor can you assume a company has no case when they choose not to file suit. (Netscape has so far deferred suing Microsoft for antitrust damages. This may yet happen. Once the court decides that Microsoft has in fact violated antitrust law, Netscape could file an action for money damages in the billions. In case you are wondering, if the DOJ gets an injunction against Microsoft, that injunction would not block a suit filed directly by Netscape for money damages.)
Maybe Microsoft will just pay the guys some money and get those domain names. After all, Microsoft had to buy the "Internet Explorer" trademark. However, this is a serious problem for companies with widely distributed trademarks. Just how many variations of a trademark should a company be required to purchase? And, do not forget that each individual country can have its own rules and just append a suffix onto the URL (I.E. www.btc.com.tw). ".tw" simply means Taiwan. So, Taiwan can issued all currently assigned domains all over again with their appendage.
Microsoft may or may not prevail in this action. However, as long as Microsoft deliberately attempts to harm the property and trademark of others companies (I.E. Sun with the Java trademark), they will do so without my public support. Besides they can hire plenty of other lawyers.
By the way, there is one more concept you must keep in mind when listening to lawyers speak on behalf of their clients. Despite what they may claim, they never speak on the principle of the matter. They only speak in defense of their client. You need to know the difference. When Microsoft's lawyers use the term "innovation" they only mean Microsoft's innovation, not innovation in principle. Innovation in principle they suppress. (I.E. the Netscape Browser, Sun's Java, Real Network's audio and video, Lantastic's networking, Stac's file compression, OS/2's boot manager, etc., the list goes on and on.) Even when they claim to offer consumers a "choice", they only mean Microsoft's choice. Their lawyers completely avoided any discussion of a choice a consumer might want to make during their cross examination of Edward W. Felten. He brought that issue up to their attention numerous times. Each time, Microsoft avoided discussing "choice". So is Microsoft for "choice as a principle"? Absolutely not. They have proven that in court by ignoring all opportunities to discuss consumer choice as a principle. They suppress choice as a principle. Dr. Edward W. Felten even pointed out that when a consumer installs another browser as the default (should they get that far), Microsoft has intentionally designed Windows 98 to ignore that customer choice and run IE regardless. Bill Gates likes to use the automobile in analogies. Well, this is like General Motors coming to your garage at home and reinstalling the Goodyears when you paid extra money for the set of "Michelin XM+S Alpin"s. That is what Microsoft's lawyers mean when they say "choice".
And, since this is an article on domain names, "WWW.tires.com" does work. However, they listed the wrong tire size for my car. Just because they take your credit card number does not mean the product is right for you. I did look under the "touring package" option. Those tires looked much closer to the size currently on the road. I wonder if Bill Gates understands the word "options" as it applies to consumer products? His lawyers clearly do not. Or, at least they "act" as if they do not. They clearly act as is all consumers should just shut up and buy what it is that Microsoft puts into the box that in turn must come with the computer (again without choice).
December 29, 1998 - Tuesday
Netscape is dead? (yep, according to Ellison)
It is much more accurate to say that Netscape has been eliminated by
illegal acts conducted by Microsoft than it is to suggest that the AOL-Netscape
merger proves the industry is alive and well with competition.
December 22, 1998 - Tuesday
Blue Mountain gets a temporary restraining order against Microsoft.
Microsoft is order to stop blocking greeting cards distributed by Blue Mountain.
The Blue Mountain case is just another example of how Microsoft uses its monopoly power and position to either prevent or frustrate competitors. It is necessary to get a court order before Microsoft will stop competing unfairly? It certainly appears that way.
Microsoft's corporate culture is corrupt. Microsoft will simply ignore all laws until caught, enjoined and all appeals have been exhausted. Any company that can not afford a significant legal bill will just be unable to offer any product or service should Microsoft decide that it does not want them to.
December 21, 1998 - Monday - Court not in session again until Jan 4, 1999.
2:15 PM PST
The Bostom Globe has an article today that is worth reading.
Despite what Microsoft might think they are subject to the same laws as every other company.
9:30 AM PST
This would normally be a joyous season and welcomed break from the antitrust litigation and discussion. However, only the court is in recess. Microsoft continues to force the sale of IE upon all consumers whether they are buying for themselves or as a gift for someone else. Normally, the person receiving a gift may not choose which applications they receive by way of gift. But, what is absolutely clear this season is that regardless of whether or not a "suggested list" is left laying around the house, if a personal computer is the gift, that system will have a Microsoft OS (90% chance) and a Microsoft internet browser (100% chance... ...even Apple is force to sell IE).
However, you watch for the testimony in coming weeks. Microsoft will actually try to present evidence in court that what everyone can see for themselves right now is not the case.
Microsoft will claim that consumers have a choice.
Microsoft will claim that 100% of those consumers pick IE because of superior technology.
Microsoft will claim that they must buy IE because it "benefits" them.
Well. I suppose the government could claim that everyone pays taxes because it benefits them. It does. But, our governments have taxing authority. Microsoft does not.
Read the cross examination of the testimony of Edward W. Felten by Microsoft. Focus upon the number of times that Edward W. Felten suggested that the consumers right to choose was far more important than any technical fabrication that Microsoft might have engaged upon. And, then note that each time the consumer was brought up, Microsoft's attorneys avoided discussing that key issue. The right of consumers is being ignored by Microsoft not only in the marketplace but in court as well. In fact, Microsoft is paying attorneys to ignore the rights of consumers. (see the Wrap and Flow for week nine for a detailed analysis of both the direct and cross examination of Dr. Felten).
Why? Simple. So Microsoft can force the sale of IE. Not even those who give others gifts this season have a choice. IE must be given.
Again, I offer to publish any article submitted for that purpose on this web site regardless of viewpoint.
Read these articles and think about them:
"Billions and Billions", "Consumer Fraud", "$140 more or $140 less?", "The Bubblegum deal", "The Jaw breaker deal" and "How much does IE cost?".
See the DOJ Outline for even more articles on these issues and for possible legal remedies.
Check out Week Nine. Check out the cross examination of Edward W. Felten by Microsoft. I listed some 21 key points of his testimony (technical, economic and legal). Microsoft choose to ignore most of his testimony in a vain attempt not to tip off the press as to the contents:
1. Microsoft ignores all rights of consumers.
2. Microsoft forces the sale of unwanted products.
3. Microsoft forces even the use of unwanted products.
4. Microsoft prevents all customers from configuring their own system
to suit their needs.
5. Microsoft prevents innovative products from competitors from
being available to consumers.
6. Microsoft then lies about the reason it has designed Windows
98 the way it did.
7. Microsoft drops support for its own OS unless IE is purchased,
installed and used by the customer.
8. Microsoft avoids discussing issues of importance to its own customers.
9. Microsoft fabricates a false technical reason to attempt to force
consumers to buy IE.
10. Microsoft prevents any consumer from not buying Microsoft products.
11. Microsoft designs products with the specific intent to preclude
consumer choice.
12. Microsoft designs products to create additional monopolies.
13. Microsoft charges monopoly prices and earns monopoly profits.
14. Microsoft suppresses technology from other companies using its
monopoly power.
But, aside from all of that, have a happy holiday.
This column will resume in about a week and return to discussing the evidence as it is presented in court and what it all means on Jan 4th.
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Nine
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Eight
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Seven
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Six
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Five
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Four
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Three
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Two
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week One