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.

June 2, 1999 - Wednesday

Yep. Microsoft is back in court to answer for their antitrust violations. This column will continue reviewing in detail the daily trial transcripts.

June 1, 1999 - Tuesday

Trial resumes with Fisher on the stand. (Just got back off vacation myself so commentary on this column will resume tomorrow with a review of the transcripts from today. Assuming they are available.)

May 10, 1999 - Monday

11:30 AM PST - Boy are things slow when Microsoft is not doing one of its comedy acts.

Well. I appears the trial will resume shortly with a few new and old witnesses.

It sounds like 98Lite will come up in the trial finally. And, it sounds like Microsoft is going to try to convince the court that general competition in the industry negates Microsoft's monopoly power and abuse of its own customers.

Microsoft and its lawyers really ought to stick to relevant evidence. There is competition in the Unix market. Perhaps their lawyers misunderstand antitrust law just enough to think that Unix competition might be relevant. It is really quiet funny. Microsoft does not consider any competitors when it makes its pricing decisions. And, few if any potential consumers have any choice but to buy Windows (or perhaps Apple). But, when the obvious facts of Microsoft's monopoly power get them into court, their lawyers incorrectly argue that general competition in the computer software industry is somehow relevant.

I guess if all you have to present is false testimony, you might as well present it.

May 4, 1999 - Tuesday

9:23 AM PDT - Microsoft and its non sequitur (unrelated) defense (San Jose Mercury) (Inter@ctiveWeek)

Microsoft continues to suggest it can abuse its own customers simply because the computer software industry is not totally dominated by them. Their defense is a non sequitur. Their defense does not relate to the facts of this case nor the applicable law. (The competition afforded by General Motors is as relevant to this case as is general competition in the computer software industry.)

According to the article linked above, Microsoft thinks that if their monopoly is not guaranteed to continue they should be left alone to abuse their customers as they see fit and preclude competition by what ever means they may have. This idea is likewise not applicable nor based in law. The antitrust laws are designed to assure that competition does exist. Right now, in the consumer OS marketplace it does not exist. So Microsoft fabricates a false explanation of what the antitrust laws are all about in hopes they can continue to violate the law unabated. Apparently, that is the way Microsoft thinks.

I guess when you do not have any legitimate defense you just have to make one up.

April 29, 1999 - Thursday

11:10 AM PDT - Caldera battle ]does] still loom for MS (to borrow a headline from Mary Jo Foley, Sm@rt Reseller)

Caldera has a rather strong case against Microsoft Corporation.

What is very clear about that case as well as the suit filed by the DOJ is that Microsoft refuses to compete fairly if it can possibly find a way to cheat.

Let's get one think very clear. It is very easy for a monopolist to cheat.

Almost all major corporations (with the exception of Microsoft) maintain an active antitrust compliance program of some sort. Those who do not usually listen to their lawyers when given appropriate advice.

Microsoft Corporation refuses to honor in any way laws which might limit their ability to suppress competition.

End of case. End of Microsoft Corporation (as we know it).

Crime does pay until you are caught. Antitrust also pays until you are caught. But, then treble damages may apply.

10:20 AM PST - Microsoft Antitrust Trial Transcripts finally get released.

The most interesting thing about these transcripts is how hard Microsoft Corporation has tried to prevent their own customers from having access to the material. Apparently the Microsoft policy is to abuse their customers as much as possible including withholding information required by law to be made available to them (I.E. the public). Very little in these transcripts help Microsoft competitors. But withholding the information from the public harms consumers. At least it furthers the deceitful campaign that Microsoft uses to dominate their own customers.

The primary reason this information is required to be made public in antitrust cases is because consumers are directly affected by it. Consumers are being abused in antitrust cases.

Microsoft knows this. Microsoft knows how to abuse consumers better than just about any corporation in history (I.E. use Microsoft's monopoly power to force the sale of unwanted products upon the consumer then adopt a campaign of deceit to suppress any resistance to the forced sale - "How much does IE really cost?")

April 21, 1999 - Workshop on Microsoft Remedies

Workshop on Microsoft Remedies

What: Appraising Microsoft II, a workshop on "Which Remedies?"

When: Friday, April 30, 1999 -- 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.

Where: Essential Information
1530 P Street NW, Washington, DC
16th and P Streets, near the DuPont Circle Metro stop

On the web: http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/2nd.html

You are invited to join experts in antitrust law and economics, computer scientists, consumer advocates, software business executives, Microsoft defenders, and others who will gather on April 30 to discuss the various mechanisms that are under consideration to curb Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.

As the first phase of the government's Microsoft antitrust trial reaches its conclusion, the question for many computer users is not whether Microsoft has violated antitrust laws, but rather: what should be done about it, and how resolution of the antitrust case change the computer industry for the future?

The April 30 workshop is the first public event to focus specifically on the issue of remedies for the Microsoft antitrust case.

All interested parties are welcome. Luncheon will be provided for those who register in advance, either by calling our office or
through the web site. If you are not able to come for the day, you are welcome to drop by for segments which interest you. The
format will be seminar, with time for questions and comments from attendees. There will be opportunity to meet with the presenters.

Featured speakers, moderators and panel members will be:

Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate

Jean-Louis Gassee, CEO of Be, Inc.

Bryan Sparks, CEO of Caldera, Inc.

Bob Young (invited), CEO of Red Hat Software.

Ted Johnson, Co-Founder and Executive VP, Visio.

Gary Reback, Wilson, Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Roberto Di Cosmo, Maitre de conferences in computer science at Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, author of with Dominique Nora, Le Hold-Up planetaire

David Bollier, Author of The Power of Openness, a proposal for the H2O Project on Open Code software., prepared for the Berkman Center, Harvard Law School.

F.M. Scherer, Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management in the Aetna Chair Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Joseph J. Simons, Partner in the Rogers & Wells' Antitrust Group

Steven Salop, Professor of Economics and Law, Georgetown University Law Center.

Jonathan Zuck, President, Association for Competitive Technology

Marc Cooper, Research Director, Consumer Federation of America

James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology

Glenn Manishin, Partner, Blumenfeld and Cohen - Technology Law Group, principal author of the SIIA remedies document

Ed Black, President, Computer and Communications Industry Association

Henry First, currently Professor of Law, New York University, recently appointed as Chief of the Antitrust Bureau for the New
York Department of Law.

Mitch Stone, editor/publisher Boycott Microsoft, technology columnist for Scripps Howard

REGISTRATION

It would be helpful but not mandatory to register before the event. The registration form is on the conference web site. This event
is being organized by Essential Information, without any outside funding, so it is necessary to ask for registration fees to
cover expenses. The fees are:

Business Registration $250
Nonprofit/government $ 45

Scholarships available for persons without sponsors or with limited ability to pay. No one who wants to come should be deterred by
the fee. To make such arrangements, please contact:

Donna Colvin <dcolvin@essential.org>
202.387.8030

April 1, 1999 - Thursday (Microsoft continues forcing the sale of IE on a daily basis)

9:30 AM PST - No joke from Judge Jackson

The judge's decision to release finding of facts prior to receiving briefs and arguments on the law may very well have the impact of getting the two parties to settle. A settlement would not be appealed. A settlement would result in a quicker resolution. The only problem is that no one is quite sure which facts Judge Jackson will find to be present in this case.

If the Judge finds that IE is a separate tied product for which all benefits can be received as all other applications when they are installed, many of Microsoft legal arguments go away. Perhaps they all go away. If the Judge finds that competition in the browser market provided by the AOL-Netscape-Sun deal does not affect competition in the consumer OS market, another argument Microsoft had looks a bit foolish.

What is absolutely clear in this case is that Microsoft wants to use its monopoly power to preclude competition. Their entire argument is based upon their claim to do so. "We can do this because...". "We can do this because...". The obvious observations is that they most likely could not do those things without their possession of monopoly power. What they are doing just does not work without extremely powerful monopoly power. And that is the rub. Other companies have to compete and therefore cannot dictate what Microsoft wants to claim as its basic rights.

Sure the AOL-Netscape-Sun offers competition. Just not in the consumer OS marketplace. General Motors offers competition too. But, the competition offered by General Motors is likewise not relevant to this case.

March 31, 1999 - Wednesday

10:20 AM PST - Trial to resume May 10th.

Microsoft to continue to ignore all antitrust laws. Microsoft has the right to defend itself in court. It does not have the right to ignore the antitrust laws.

As we speak, all consumers are forced to buy IE (including Apple customers). And, Microsoft tries to find a legal way for to continue the forced sale.

March 30, 1999 - Tuesday

2:44 PM PST - Column by Dan Gilmore warns about tricks and deceit from Microsoft Corporation

10:30 AM PST - Of course, any remedy that would permit competition for customers would not be approved by Microsoft.

Microsoft Corporation does not want to have to compete for customers.

Microsoft only wants to continue to force consumers to buy Microsoft products. What company would not want that?

The only problem is that our antitrust laws are designed and in effect to encourage competition not preclude it.

9:14 AM PST - Microsoft continues and even increases its antitrust violations

Microsoft is truly a deceitful company. As it sits down with the DOJ appearing to wanting to settle it antitrust violations, it increases them. Now users have to actually use IE in order to get product information from Microsoft.

Microsoft needs to be re-organized alright. But they are not the appropriate body to do so.

Home - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.