Home

Daily Wrap and Flow

Reading the Daily Wrap and Flow is a quick and easy way to follow the ebb and flow of the trial. This link will always contain the latest commentary making it easy to bookmark. This column is updated throughout the day with the latest commentary placed at the top. If you prefer external links to use a full screen see help.

March 24, 1999 - (Court not in session)

11:18 AM PST - Microsoft will settle as long as it can continue forcing the sale of IE upon all consumers.

I guess no one told Bill Gates that they already agreed with this Judge to not make the sale of IE a precondition for buying their OS products.

Now, Bill Gates claims he would like to settle only if Microsoft Corporation can continue using its monopoly power in Windows and bundle any and all applications they may choose to force upon consumers.

It does appear that the monopoly power of Microsoft Corporation will have to be removed completely.

10:10 AM PST - Bill Gates is not aware of anyone suggesting a break up to solve the monopoly problem?

Really now. I can understand that Bill Gates may not read this web page every day. But, to suggest that the CCIA and the SIIA are "no bodies" is quite an insult to a large number of individuals and companies. Gosh. I think Microsoft even belongs to one or both of these groups and participated in formulating their recommendations. I assume Microsoft voted "no" on every motion, but Bill Gates has either a very poor memory (contrary to other industry leaders who have dealt directly with him) or he is just lying.

You have to be under oath to commit perjury. So. I guess Bill Gates can say anything he wants for the press. Unless, you take into account these public statements made by Bill Gates (and Microsoft lawyers) when and if a class action stockholders suit is filed.

Should it occur that the Microsoft stock takes a dive when and if Microsoft is split up, all of these public statements will certainly be used as evidence of the distribution of false information solely intended to prop up the stock value. Clearly any corporation has an objective to be optimistic in public about the future. However, doing so in unrealistic situations only provides evidence for class action law suits by stockholders (who may have believed those claims at their peril).

Is Microsoft stock worth more as a monopolist or a company split up into many pieces? Well. I am not going to speculate one way or the other. I am sure a lot of stockholders think their personal fortunes are improved if the monopoly stays intact and they own some of it. I am also sure that a lot of the so-called Microsoft supporters simply own a lot of Microsoft stock and feel their financial well being is threatened by the antitrust action. If enough stockholders do think that way, rough times might be ahead. Certainly, the risk is different today than it was a couple of years ago. Historically, companies that have been split up were valued higher after the restructuring. Whether that event will occur again, or the results will be different, is up to the speculators.

Personally, I do not represent either side to this litigation. And, I do not plan to put myself in any financial position to gain or lose based upon its outcome. I do plan to continue to call any and all shots as I see them. Right or wrong.

9:40 AM PST - CCIA suggests a break up of Microsoft as well

It is hard to tell from the limited details released regarding the CCIA's recommendation, but it sounds like they favor a solution somewhat similar to that I have proposed.

March 22, 1999 - (Court not in session, settlement talks may occur)

9:45 AM PST - The DOJ should not believe anything Microsoft says

The DOJ should hold firm...

...I do not doubt that Microsoft might want to settle now that a structural remedy is about to be applied to their conduct. Microsoft will do almost anything to keep its monopoly power intact. Up to this point Microsoft has even structured false testimony (I.E. perjury) in that attempt.

Microsoft wants a blanket exception to the antitrust laws for Microsoft Corporation. They clearly do not want to have to abide by any of the laws restricting their ability to prevent competition. They do not want OS competitors (and they have none) and they do not want any browser competitors (and they have tried everything they know, legal or not, to prevent competitors in that market). Well. IBM wants an exception to the laws too. Every corporation wants that. Microsoft is no different.

The problem is that Microsoft Corporation, as a corporation, is far too willing to violate the law if it suits their needs.

Just last week IE 5.0 was released by Microsoft Corporation as a separate product (again), a trademarked product. A trademark which they very recently purchased for the purpose of marketing IE as a separate product. (Hint: That is the only reason why any corporation buys a trademark.) But, what did the lawyers for Microsoft just do in court? They had one or more witnesses perjure themselves by claiming IE was not a separate and distinct product, but rather only a part of Windows95/98. That claim is a false claim fabricated solely as a legal defense. That claim is not even relevant otherwise. But, Microsoft's lawyers have encouraged Microsoft witnesses to lie in court in the vain attempt to fabricate a legal defense. The only problem is the testimony was false and fabricated. It was a lie. It was perjurious. Apparently the Microsoft lawyers do not care if their witnesses commit perjury or not. Besides, it is the witness who gets in trouble with perjury. Not Microsoft and not the lawyers. So. If it takes perjury to win the case, apparently the Microsoft lawyers are all for it.

I can accept that Microsoft now wants to settle. They want to keep all the marbles they have stolen so far. They want to claim to play fair in the future. Well. Microsoft Corporation and its lawyers have already agreed in writing once that they would not force the sale of IE as a precondition to the purchase of their monopoly products. Remember? That was and is the consent decree that they were almost held in contempt for violating. The consent decree is still in effect. It is still being violated by Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation right now is intentionally violating an agreement they made with Judge Jackson and the DOJ.

If Microsoft even expects anyone to accept what they say as having any merit at all, they can start abiding by their existing agreements. Otherwise, no one is likely to care nor should they.

Home - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.