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.

Oct 16, 1999 - Saturday

1:30 PM PDT - Microsoft Corporation still a "pirate" while they pose with the State for their help?

Microsoft a "pirate" too?

I used to support Microsoft Corporations effort to protect itself against software piracy. However, since Microsoft Corporation organized an effort to get its own customers to tap into AOL's IM service without authorization (actually with specific notice from AOL that Microsoft was not authorized), that support has ceased.

Only when Microsoft Corporation stops hacking into the proprietary services of other corporation will they regain any support for their anti-piracy efforts.

Is Microsoft Corporation still trying to illegally force its way into AOL? I have not heard any reports lately. Since the DOJ was requested to look into this matter (by myself and others) I have not heard a word about that act of "piracy". Did the DOJ call up Bill Gates on the phone? Is so, what did they discuss? Do you suppose they discussed laws against "hacking"?

We all know that Microsoft still thinks that the property belonging to other companies such as SUN and AOL should be open and subject to a partial control of Microsoft Corporation. We also know that Microsoft Corporation refuses that same idea when the topic of "Windows" comes up in that regard. So, I guess they only believe in open standards when someone else owns them? But, never their own? Is Microsoft little more than a cheap and common hypocrite? No. Because they also ignore laws anytime they get into the way of Microsoft directly harming consumers or competitors. Hypocrites only talk. Microsoft Corporation acts. And, it acts whether or not it might be illegal.

1:15 PM PDT - Microsoft Corporation hell bent on harming Sun even if it means violating the law

Sounds like FRAUD to me.

Microsoft Corporation obviously entered into the Sun contract with the intent to harm the Java Trademark, violate Suns copyrights and harm Sun while under the guise of a licensing contract. That sounds like fraud.

There is little doubt about that. Microsoft never intended to perform in a fair manner under the licensing agreement and sought only to damage the property of Sun. Microsoft clearly acted to harm the Java trademark and avoid compliance with the Java copyright.

And, as with the DOJ antitrust case they will neither act fairly nor do any act which might be considered fair compliance under the license agreement unless a court of law specifically dictates to them what conduct they must engage in. That is also very clear.

Was there supposed to be some harm if Microsoft just complied with the license, honored the trademark held by another company and avoided copyright violations? Would Windows developers not have a development language available unless laws were broken?

The answer is clearly "no".

Microsoft Corporation acted solely out it is perceived need to harm a competitor if it could possibly do so. And, they chose that plan despite its illegality.

1:00 PM PDT - Organized crime would not get away with what Microsoft Corporation wants to do

Is Gates a crime family?

While anyone has a right to suggest budgetary changes to Congress, you would think that Microsoft Corporation would first consider abiding by the law rather than cut the budget for the police.

What is becoming very clear is that Microsoft Corporation will ignore all interests including those of its own customers unless the Supreme Court of the United States gives it a specific order to comply with the law.

Any company that arrogant is not deserving of the right to do business of any kind.

Does Microsoft Corporation have the right to ignore the rights of its own customers? Well? Short of violations of law, yes, they do. And, it is very clear they will ignore customers as necessary. It is also clear they will ignore all laws as necessary. And, as they are charged with violations of law they will then try to cut the police budget.

If organized crime did that in your town, what would you do?

Oct 15, 1999 - Friday

2:30 PM PDT - Would the new Brio from HP cost less without Windows?

How much w/o "Windows"?

There is little doubt that not including Windows in that low end system would help reduce the price considerably. Or, is that price already without windows included?

And, if it does not have a modem does HP offer a choice to not purchase a browser? That could be another $35 off or so.

And, what about a network interface card? If that is not included (and it looked like it was omitted), then networking should also be removed for another $25 or so off?

Microsoft claims Windows 98 has a suggested retail price of $200. Just how much of the cost of that Brio is Windows, anyway? Or, does the Brio come with Linux? That would be a lower cost option.

8:22 AM PDT - Consumers have little choice over the software they must buy

No choice is no choice.

At least that is what you have if you buy any Microsoft products.

How can anyone suggest that the software you buy is based upon your needs when all consumers are denied the very right to pick and choose the software they buy?

If you want a consumer OS from Microsoft you MUST PURCHASE Internet Explorer. That is not a choice. The monopolist forces that sale.

If you want a consumer or enterprise OS from Microsoft you MUST PURCHASE networking technologies from Microsoft. That is not a choice either. The monopolist forces that sale.

Suggesting that any consumer is able to pick and choose their software is only true if they do not do any business with Microsoft.

Unbundle networking and internet technologies from the OS and then maybe, just maybe, consumers can actually choose to buy the software they want to use. Until then, no consumer need make any choice at all. Microsoft Corporation has dictated it.

Oct 14, 1999 - Thursday

11:55 AM PDT - Bad ethics are bad business.

Bad ethics are bad business. Of course Microsoft employees do not want to be embarrassed by the illegal acts conducted by Microsoft Corporation.

However, the remedy is not to censor the public discussion of such poor ethics and illegal acts but rather to correct the conduct.

As does the author of this article, I get mail all the time from people complaining about the bad press and commentary that Microsoft gets. Well. Any monopolist who forces consumers to buy products that do not want and used deceit in the process deserves all the bad rap they get.

Microsoft Corporation has defrauded the consumer and they complain about public comments pointing that out.

Sorry. But, the only correct response is to change corporate policy.

Anyone and everyone who complains about the bad PR that Microsoft gets should address their complaints to Redmond. Microsoft lies about their products, using deceit to fool consumers, pays witnesses to perjure themselves and then complains about the bad PR.

What is that saying? "All PR you get is deserved"? In Microsoft's case that is definitely the case.

Oct 13, 1999 - Wednesday

4:30 PM PDT - Deceptive advertising is a serious problem

Deceptive advertising is a real problem.

It is nice to see Apple settled with the FTC regarding earlier representations made to consumers that proved to be false. I wonder if Microsoft will do the same?

Microsoft Corporation has publicly claimed that they do not charge consumers for IE. But, they told Compaq the price for the Windows 98 bundle was going up because of added features. What is that? Double talk? And, those published financial reports that claim 20% of all OS revenue from operating systems (including NT server, apparently) are attributable to unearned revenue which Microsoft said specifically included IE.

So is IE "free"? Clearly not if you look at the hole in your credit card after buying Windows.

There is no doubt that deceit and deception play a major role in marketing. Apple recognized it and now it is Microsoft Corporation's turn. They need to come clean and tell consumers how much they are being charged for that software costing half a billion in R&D. Time for a rebate? It sure is. Millions have been forced to buy IE regardless of their needs and are being charged somewhere between $35 and $140 a copy for it.

(Do not ask the DOJ for their estimate. The DOJ is fully willing to let Microsoft hang itself by claiming that IE is free and predatory.)

3:45 PM PDT - Nokia is playing it smart staying away from the monopolist

Linux is a superior choice for many reasons.

For one, no monopolist is going to ruin your market like Microsoft did with Netscape and others.

Secondly, for embedded or included type of special systems the company can control their own destiny instead of being at the beckon and call of a monopolist.

Compare what Nokia is doing to what Intuit was forced to do. Intuit in on the bubble. As soon as they stop promoting Microsoft technology and only Microsoft technology, they are history. Microsoft will just bundle Money into the OS and force everyone to buy it too.

Nokia is playing it smart. Microsoft ISVs and OEMs are playing it dumb. ISVs think they are playing it smart by following the wild elephant through the forest. But, that is the wrong end to do business. And, if really bad things do not happen, the elephant can turn.

Sometimes even the smart money looks pretty stupid.

1:50 PM PDT - Both IM and Windows should be an open standard, not?

Why not a "Windows" standard?

If Microsoft is all for open standards why not a public "Windows" standard?

Why does Microsoft only propose standards for the technology they do not own such as IM and Java? They could easily open up the Windows code and let other companies write a Windows version or simply write subsystems and applications for Windows without always disadvantaging everyone else in the industry. They could also unbundle their browser and networking and let other companies offer their version of those applications and subsystems.

If IM is supposed to be freely open to everyone then Windows absolutely must be open as well. Millions and millions of consumers depend upon Windows applications. Clearly they should be able to use their software on systems running code from other vendors as well, right? Is that not what Microsoft if pulling for with IM? They want their code to run on AOL's servers?

Or, is Microsoft just a thief, hypocrite and monopolist forcing the sale of their products whenever the can and stealing the technology from other companies with each opportunity?

I think we all know the answer.

1:20 PM PDT - 98Lite would fix the security problems associated with IE 5 as well

98Lite would fix that problem too!

No wait. 98Lite removes IE from Windows 98 altogether making the OS faster and leaner.

Oh well. Never mind.

But wait, I thought Mr. Allchin said under oath that Windows 98 and IE were a single product. It is not that they can not be separated but did not the article above specifically mention IE 5 in regard to NT? Is IE 5 a single product of Windows 98 AND a single product of NT? Or, was Mr. Allchin just lying? (In court that could be perjury.)

Oct 12, 1999 - Tuesday

1:45 PM PDT - Microsoft should lose the Java suit hands down

More than contracts and copyrights are involved with the Java dispute.

Sure Java is a language, but it is also a trademark. And, what does that trademark mean and who gets to decide what it means?

The Java trademark means cross-platform compatibility. And, Sun and Sun only decides that issue.

If Microsoft can redefine what Java (a Sun trademark) means, then Sun should be able to redefine what the "Windows" trademark means. Java and Windows are both trademarks owned respectfully by Sun and Microsoft. If you are going to argue that Microsoft can alter the meaning for Java, then you must also argue that Sun can alter the meaning of Windows.

Sure, this is a contract dispute. Sure, copyright law is involved. But, trademark law is also involved here. And, with trademark law, Sun owns all the cards. It is there trademark and they allow decide what it means.

Do you really want Symantec to redefine what "Microsoft Visual C++" means?

Do you really want Ford to redefine what "Chevy" means?

Do you really want some other company to tell you what your trademarks mean?

Microsoft should rightly lose this case on contract law, copyright law and trademark law. Java is Sun's property and Microsoft should no more be able to pirate Java than it should be able to pirate AOL's IM.

Microsoft Corporation does like to steal property it does not own. There is no doubt about that.

Oct 11, 1999 - Monday

12:01 PM PDT - It is time for consumers to demand their basic rights.

Little doubt that monopolies are not being formed.

This issue requires some serious consideration.

Competition must be established in broadband internet service as well as traditional cable TV.

Is not the technology available? I think it is.

Could not the cable company provide access to a whole range of ISPs? I think so.

Could not the cable company provide access to a whole range of TV content providers? I think so. (If not yet, then when?)

There is little doubt that big business knows and understands the power that a monopoly has over consumers. Consumers should be able to understand it as well. Just look at the rates and choices for long distance phone services. More and more choices appear every day. And, rates are going down.

Contrast that with the minimum cost of OS software from the monopolist, Microsoft Corporation. That absolute price has not dropped in 10 years. The value to the consumer may have actually increased. Clearly there is more in Windows today than there was in DOS ten years ago. But, bundling the networking technology, GUI and internet technology has not only precluded competition but also kept the minimum price of a PC abnormally high. And, Microsoft Corporation has plenty of other applications they can force upon all consumers. They can start with Money as soon as Intuit stops promoting IE and stops disfavoring the Netscape product. They can bundle Word any day they wish. They can bundle Access and Excell as well. And, they can bundle just about any application they want when they do not want to compete with superior technology. That has been their business plan for 10 years. Just ask Novell, Lantastic, Caldera, Corel, Stac, Quarterdeck and others.

Every big company wants to own a monopoly. Some itty bitty companies also argue on the behalf of Microsoft hoping someday they too will be able to screw consumers with monopoly power and preclude competitors.

It is definitely time for consumers to insist upon their basic rights to have a choice of providers AND a choice of products without illegal interference from monopolists.

10:15 AM PDT - Thick or thin is not really the issue.

Not decided in the abstract... thin and thick both have their place.

Just as important however is that the OS (which ever one it is) should be unbundled from all applications and subsystems.

Take Windows as an example: (this applies to all Oss)

Unbundling the Microsoft brand of networking and the Microsoft brand of the browser would greatly reduce its price. Those customers who do not need either the networking capability (standalone PC) or the browser (PC dedicated to a particular business function) would get a cheaper and thinner machine. Those customers who need either of those technologies can simply install the best software for their needs.

The issue is not really one of thick or thin. The issue is one of each consumer being able to buy only the technology THEY WANT. For some applications that might be the thin model. For others that might be the thick alternative. For some consumers thin might be great. For others a "thicker" model would best serve their needs.

The time when all PCs must be "black" as in the old Ford Model T days is long past. Only the monopolist, Microsoft Corporation is dragging that idea into the future as far as they can. They only do so to preclude competition. And, they obviously do not mind harming consumers financially along the way.

10:00 AM PDT - Yes. Let's ask Jeeves

How much without IE?

Lets ask Jeeves.

How much would Windows cost if the half a billion in R&D for IE was not being recovered by Microsoft via Windows sales?

How much would Windows cost if the Microsoft brand of networking were not bundled with Windows?

Do you think Jeeves would know that?

How much would Windows cost if more than one company were able to sell it without the monopolist Microsoft dictating how much they pay and which products must be bundled with it?

Do you think Jeeves would know that?

8:50 AM PDT - The low level PC should cost around $200.

Unbundle Windows and the price will drop.

I have often suggested that unbundling the multi-PC networking software and Microsoft brand browser from Windows and the price will drop.

Bundling is "unfair" to consumers and only results in a higher priced minimum model.

Unbundling Microsoft networking and bundling Microsoft internet technologies is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers who do not want those technologies for their PC can buy a cheaper model and 2) those who do can pick and choose the applications and subsystems best suited for their needs.

Sure, putting Linux on the PC will result in a lower cost PC. Windows is highly overpriced. It is sold by a monopolist and the bundle includes a lot of software that many consumers do not want. They clearly do not wish to pay for that stuff. They prefer superior software or no software at all.

Oct 8, 1999 - Friday

4:00 PM PDT - Under oath, Linux was great according to Microsoft.

Product disparagement, that is all it is.

Yes. Microsoft did promote Linux all it could while under oath. But, now that they can lie again in public with a greatly reduced probability of liability they will lie about Linux in the other direction.

Microsoft also complained bitterly in court about a white paper put out by IBM when Windows 95 was first released. That white paper was pretty accurate on many points. But, that does not stop Microsoft Corporation from claiming that other companies do not always promote the Microsoft brand of a product. Never mind that the white paper was technically correct and quite detailed as well.

I guess if Microsoft must compete they just disparage other products whether they have a basis for doing so or not.

Microsoft does like to tell the public a different story whether they are under oath or not. As it turns out they lie pretty easily in either circumstances.

Remember when Allchin (under oath) claimed that IE and the OS were a single product but within a couple of weeks Microsoft Corporation released IE 5.0 totally independent of any OS. Oh well. A lie is a lie, I guess.

If Microsoft is willing to ask employees to risk perjury they certainly would have no reason to tell the truth in PR releases and advertisements.

Microsoft Corporation is dead set on a policy of using deceit to fool consumers. There is no doubt about that. They fail to disclose the price for IE when bundled with the OS then falsely claim that half of billion dollars in R&D for IE resulted in a "free product". Unfortunately, they also report financial supplements that claim 20% of all OS revenue (including NT server) are attributed to "unearned revenue" which Microsoft says includes IE. So, IE is not free. They only refuse to tell consumers how much they are being forced to pay for it.

And, now comes the stories about Linux.

Oh well. Microsoft Corporation has no credibility left anyway. Everyone knows they just lie when the facts are contrary to their interests.

Consumer fraud is alive and well in Redmond.

Oct 7, 1999 - Thursday

5:20 PM PDT - IBM should sue Microsoft Corporation too.

IBM should sue Microsoft Corporation.

Maybe they will. Microsoft Corporation acted in a why in violation of the antitrust laws to drive IBM from the PC market. You would think that OEMs and ISVs would at least take this as a lesson when dealing with a monopolist. Hint: They may decide to ruin you too. And, no law is going to stand in their way.

Will IBM sue Microsoft? I do not know. But, they do have a case to be made. And, the expected ruling in the Microsoft antitrust trial will make that case easier.

8:30 AM PDT - DOJ expenses are a bargain

How much did Microsoft spend in their effort to harm consumers and preclude competition?

As I recall a figure of 5 million a month surfaced a few months back. And, that figure was spent solely to avoid abiding by the law and forcing the sale of unwanted products upon consumers.

And, then you have the cost of harm to consumers themselves.

Microsoft sold its browser for $35 just before it was bundled and forced upon consumers. Microsoft has also argued in court that over 100,000,000 consumers attempted to download not IE but the Netscape brand of browser.

Does that equate to 3.5 billion dollars of consumer harm? Well. If those consumers preferred Navigator but were forced to buy IE instead it certainly would.

Sure Microsoft has claimed that consumers are not charged for IE. But, they themselves also publish reports to the contrary. Published financial reports by Microsoft claim that 20% of all OS revenue is attributed to "unearned revenue" which Microsoft says includes IE. The suggested retail price for Windows 98 is $200. What is 20% of $200? Got your calculator out? Need help with that calculation. It comes to $40 a copy.

Sounds like spending 12.4 million to counter a 3.5 billion dollar harm is a hell of a bargain for tax payers.

Maybe Microsoft would be willing to settle this case and rebate that money? $35 to every buyer of Windows 98 sounds like a pretty fair start.

Oct 5, 1999 - Tuesday

8:59 AM PDT - MIT and Microsoft are pretty tight - I wonder if their education is not being compromised?

Was not that Dean from MIT?

Could this "payment" be in part an exchange of corporate support between Microsoft and MIT? MIT supports the monopolist. The monopolist supports MIT?

You know, the guy that claimed to know all about the computer software industry but argued in court that just about any one can write an OS and compete heads up with Microsoft Corporation? Was he not from MIT? I think he claimed to be an economists as well.

I just wonder what kind of snake oil they pass out in their classrooms? The economics classes would really be interesting to sit in on. I openly wonder if anyone there knows what a monopoly is. Clearly the Dean from that school has no idea.

I also wonder if that Dean promotes Microsoft Corporation on campus? Clearly he is paid enough to say just about anything that would further the monopolists financial interests even if it means compromising his own ethics and education. What was the article in the Boston Globe about anyway? Something about the fact that the DOJ has no case because they have not proven harm to consumers? And, that article gets published while the Dean knows for a fact that antitrust law is focused upon the harm to competitors and it is not a consumer protection law. I just wonder if the Dean also misrepresents reality in the classroom if it benefits his own pocket?

I would have to guess it does.

8:42 AM PDT - Competition does benefit consumers - nothing is more obvious

Is not competition nice?

Take a lesson from the processor chip industry, competition is great for consumers. There is no doubt higher prices would be paid by all consumers without it.

I really laugh when I read the PR releases from Microsoft claiming that the lack of competition somehow benefits consumers and that they should be pleased to be forced to pay the same high price they had to pay last time.

AMD and Intel prove what competition is supposed to be. Competition in disc drives do the same. Even the price of monitors is competitive and dropping. The price of memory may not always go down in the short run, but in the long run the fact that competition does exist pretty much guarantees that it will drop further.

What is becoming painfully obvious is that Microsoft Corporation intentionally misrepresents not only its views of the industry but also misrepresents what it thinks. And it is all done to fool or confuse consumers. Their representations about software prices, competition and even quality have no purpose other than to confuse and mislead consumers.

Bundling of unnecessary and unwanted products has maintained a abnormally high price for Microsoft products and precluded competition at the same time. Of course, Microsoft claims otherwise, but they have lied an awful lot lately.

Bill Gates himself has been caught commenting on the affect that competition from DR-Dos might have on MS-Dos, right? And, now that DR-Dos is all but rubbed out via bundling Microsoft no longer needs to consider the impact of any competing product while making pricing decisions or bundling unwanted technology with the OS just to force the sale.

Take a lesson from the processor industry, competition is great for consumers.

And, the next time some idiot tries to tell you that a monopoly is good for you, get a second opinion.

Oct, 4, 1999 - Monday

10:23 AM PDT - Competition is alive and well in the chip business

Real competition is great, is it not?

AMD and Intel are going at it again and again offering more performance or lower prices or both. The contrast between the processor market and the consumer OS market is startling to say the least. Every few weeks or so the consumer gets additional choices or lower prices in the processor market. In the consumer OS market they are simply told they have to pay the same price as last time only with fewer options and more bundled applications. Consumers have fewer and fewer choices and get less reliable software to boot. Perhaps even insecure software is forced upon them.

The next time Microsoft claims not to be harming consumers, I hope you have learned a little bit about the realities of monopolists making public claims simply to permit them to continue violating the law on a daily basis.

10:11 AM PDT - Houck is correct.

Houck is right on both counts.

The DOJ will receive a favorable judgment and no one in government really wants to regulate the industry nor design software.

The reason? It does not have to.

The antitrust laws are designed to prevent one competitor from excluding another. The laws do not make one product better than another. Neither do they decide just how a product or group of products will be designed. (Microsoft wants to suggest otherwise simply to gain some public support. But, they know better. Much better.)

The judge in this case will simply acknowledge that consumers know that browsers are applications and that they should rightly be able to pick and choose their browser as well as every other application they may or may not need.

The only purpose served by bundling was to force the consumers hand and preclude a competitor. Undoing that force is not regulation at all. Requiring Microsoft to compete fairly is not regulation either.

If Microsoft Corporation is really chicken to compete, it can leave the industry.

Sep 30, 1999

11:45 AM PDT - Even the new version from AOL solidifies Microsoft's monopoly

Not even NT?

I laugh at those idiots who claim that consumers have a choice of which OS they buy. Actually, I doubt their intelligence is low enough to qualify as an "idiot". They just deceive people and use fraud to increase the sale of Microsoft products.

AOL has been required to promote IE in exchange for space on the Windows monopoly space. And, because of the practical lack of any viable competition in the consumer OS market is also required to demand that all AOL customers use Windows (or the Mac). But, the Mac also requires the purchase of IE as well.

Sounds like a monopoly to me.

Yet. Without a surprise, I still get email each day from people who claim that Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Those same deceitful people will say the same about IE barring legal action by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I can see the 9 justices now. Microsoft lawyers get up and claim that Microsoft does not have a monopoly and should be able to force all consumers to buy IE in complete disregard for all rights that consumers might have. The Chief asks the justices which OS they use now. He tallies the hands raised for Windows and calls for the next case.

You do not think so? It is likely to be the silliest argument ever put before the Supreme Court. The only hope is that the justices are kind enough not to laugh out loud at Microsoft lawyers.

In the meantime, AOL must continue to force its consumers to stick with Windows (or the Mac) and even turn away consumers who might want to run NT.

8:30 AM PDT - IE now considered a security threat as well as a forced sale product?

IE a security problem?

Is not IE the application required to be purchased by all Microsoft customers as well as Apple customers? You know, the application force sold on just about everyone?

Clearly all consumers should have the very basic right to not purchase any browser or networking capability if they themselves decide they do not need it.

Microsoft Corporation does ignore the needs of its own customers in the attempt to preclude competition. It happened before with networking. It is happening again with the browser.

And, to think that Microsoft Corporation claimed no consumer has been harmed.

Unbundling those unwanted applications and subsystems could drop the price of Windows at retail by as much as $60 or more. That is enough of a reason to unbundled Windows. But, now we see that IE is even a security threat. No wonder Microsoft could not get C2 certification if NT was connected to a network. The only C2 certification Microsoft ever received required that the system not be part of a network. And, now, Microsoft Corporation, using its monopoly power requires networking and their internet technology be purchased with total disregard for the needs and wants of all consumers.

No harm? It is worse than a joke. It is deceit and fraud.

Sep 29, 1999

2:00 PM PDT - PCs could cost even less if Microsoft unbundled its technology

$60 less if unbundled...

Microsoft Corporation actually thinks that all consumers should be forced to buy all Microsoft technology regardless of their needs. I have email from Microsoft Corporation to prove that point.

Unbundle the OS by removing IE and Windows should sell for $35 less.

Unbundle the OS by removing networking technology and Windows should sell for $25 less.

That is $60 off the price of a PC at the low end.

Yet, the monopolists absolutely refuses to permit that price reduction.

Microsoft Corporation is using its monopoly power to force the sale of unwanted and unneeded software.

What benefit can networking do a consumer with one PC at home? If they have other PCs elsewhere then they can clearly buy superior technology well suited to their needs.

What benefit can a browser do to a corporate user required to perform daily tasks using custom software? You know. Data entry, etc. Standard business use of a computer does not necessarily require a browser. In fact, many businesses do not want silly browsers on their machines at all. It cuts into their productivity just as a silly game might. It is the customers choice, not that of Microsoft Corporation.

If Microsoft wants to sell any product, they better start to respect the very elementary rights of all consumers (IE the right not to buy any Microsoft products not meeting their actually needs.)

And, to think that Microsoft actually pays lawyers to lie about the harm to consumers. They pay witnesses to lie about that too. But, lawyers really should know better. Lawyers do know about perjury. (I wonder if they advised Allchin about perjury before he got on the stand?)

1:38 PM PDT - Michael Dell can solve IBM's problems? Maybe with the help of a few good lawyers.

IBM pays more for Windows?

You know it is not just the guy in charge. I do not want to suggest that Michael Dell could not improve things at IBM. He might be able to.

However, evidence in the antitrust trial showed that IBM was forced to pay a higher price for Windows than other comparable OEMs. Just how significant that is might be a bit speculative. But, higher costs do require higher prices. And, higher prices can hurt in a very cost sensitive market.

Should IBM file an antitrust law suit against Microsoft Corporation, one of the damages claimed will be not only the higher price IBM had to pay but also the lost of business from being forced to cover higher costs relative to other OEMs in the same category.

Are we talking billions here? Maybe. Maybe not. But, hundreds of millions is clearly on the path. And, antitrust damages can be tripled.

I think if you add all of the financial damages together, IBM is clearly looking at a billion dollar plus claim.

Will IBM sue Microsoft for antitrust damages? Ask them. And, then ask them again in a month or so.

9:22 AM PDT - Microsoft stockholders do have a lot of wealth. Where did they get it?

"The Brass Tacks".

Lets get down to the brass tacks. (Where do you think Microsoft got that money?)

Offer all consumers who bought or will buy Windows 98 a rebate of $35
and a copy of 98Lite or simply remove IE and all internet technologies
from Windows and reduce the price $35.

For those consumers who do not want a browser on their machine(s), they
can keep the money. Millions will.

For those consumers who prefer Opera or Navigator, they can forward the
money to those companies and get their next version when it is released. (According to Microsoft in court this should be hundreds of millions.)

For those consumers who prefer IE, they can return the money to
Microsoft and get the next version of IE from Microsoft. (Hard tell if anyone will do this.)

Now, let's hear the excuses for denying consumers that choice. All consumers prefer to pick and choose their own applications. Even the most ardent Microsoft supporters insist upon that right themselves.

If you think consumers should be given that choice, tell the DOJ. It might be part of the judgment.

If you think they should not be given that choice please address why you think so for each of
the three classes of consumers outlined above.

When we are done, we can do the same for Networking technologies but use
$25 instead.

Sep 28, 1999

12:48 PM PDT - Microsoft remedies do need some careful consideration

Regulation would be a mistake.

The biggest problem with regulation is implementing it. It is just not easy to do and creates a lot of uncertainty. But, aside from that problem the court is not well suited to do it anyway.

If Congress really wants to regulate the computer software industry, I suppose it could consider doing that. But, they have enough on their plate.

Selling the Windows code base outright to 6 or 8 major players in the industry (including one spin off with Microsoft money) should be seriously considered by the DOJ and the court. For one, the monopoly would immediately disappear without harming consumers.

IBM, HP, Symantec, Oracle, Inprise, Novell, Caldera, Corel, Dell, Gateway, AOL and others should all be given the opportunity to purchase a non-exclusive copy of the windows code base. The top 6 or 8 bidders could then form a standards body to maintain a standard. If Microsoft money wants to bid, let it. They too will get only a non-exclusive copy.

The rest of Microsoft could easily be split up along product lines or even product categories.

But, most importantly no remaining organization would be able to preclude superior technology from the marketplace. Superior technology is certain to appear for use on the internet and on personal computers.

Fair and open markets for all products is essential.

Sep 24, 1999

11:16 AM PDT - Microsoft Corporation does need to be split up.

Microsoft precludes competitors just as Standard Oil did.

The acts of Standard Oil and Microsoft are very similar.

Standard Oil forces railroads to overcharge competitors for shipping their oil.

Microsoft Corporation forced OEMs (Intuit, Apple, Compaq, HP, Gateway and others) to promote Microsoft products and harm Netscape's products.

Microsoft Corporation should in fact be split up.

By the way, Standard Oil was not overpricing its oil either. It was cheaper. One of the reasons it was cheaper was that it acted to force competitors to have higher sales and distribution costs. Sounds very much like Microsoft.

But, not even Standard Oil could force consumers to buy Standard Oil products and prevent them from wanting to buy gas from competitors.

Microsoft Corporation does precisely that. Microsoft is even more harmful to consumers than was Standard Oil.

8:24 AM PDT - Torvalds speaks up and is correct.

Unbundled Windows and the price will surely drop.

Microsoft Corporation over the years has been able to keep the price of their OS high simply by bundling unwanted technology with the monopoly product.

Just look how it has grown. DOS started out much like Linux today. It was a fairly useful operating system.

Overtime however, Microsoft bundled new technology from the GUI front end to Networking to Disc compression utilities to internet technologies. At each step a competitor was precluded from the market by bundling Microsoft's version of the technology. Quarterdeck fell. Lantastic fell. Novell was all but restricted from Windows systems. And, most recently Netscape was prevented from having a fair market for internet technologies.

Consumers paid the price at each step and continue to pay the price.

Windows today is at least twice as expensive as it should be because of this bundling.

Take out networking (totally worthless for anyone buying a single machine) and drop the price. If any competition at all existed, Microsoft would have done that long ago. (Actually, they would never have bundled it.)

Take out unwanted utilities such as disc compression. Drop the price instead. Most consumers do not use or need disc compression anyway. If they want it, they could buy superior solutions from other vendors.

Take out the GUI. Let others develop superior GUIs. Let others like Caldera sell a superior DOS and use the Windows GUI. Caldera has already filed an antitrust suit on this basis. And, apparently it has proof that DR-Dos will in fact run the Windows GUI. That should be of no surprise. Linux runs a number of different GUIs. OS/2 has run Windows 3.1 for a long time. And, it has its own GUI as well, Presentation Manager.

Take out the browser. Everyone does not want to buy IE. That is a truly stupid suggestion. For one, many consumers do not use the internet at all and never will. Not every computer is used for browser the internet. Clearly not everyone should be forced to buy browser software. If they do want that application, they should always be giving their choice whether it be IE, Navigator or Opera. Making everyone first purchase IE as Microsoft admits doing only increases the cost of the PC. How much? About $35.

Software from Microsoft today would be much less expensive if it was unbundled. There is no doubt about that. Microsoft spent half a billion dollars of your money to develop IE. And, now, you are paying for that.

Software can drop in price for two reasons. First, unbundling it will result in lower cost options. Second, real competition (of which Microsoft itself has testified it has none of) would also impact the market price for products.

Torvalds in correct. The price for software will and should lower. The sooner Microsoft unbundles applications and utilities from the minimum consumer purchase, the sooner that price drop will be seen in the market. The sooner Microsoft is prevented from precluding competition, the sooner that price will drop even further.

And to think that Microsoft lawyers got up and lied about harm to consumers.

8:00 AM PDT - Ballmer speaks up, but why? (Ballmer may be correct too.)

[The following note was posted to the ZDNet Talkback in response to the article linked above. We shall see how long it takes before it is posted and whether it passes their censorship.]

Ballmer doing a cover?

Only a few months ago Microsoft lawyers stood on the court house steps and claimed no admissible evidence had been submitted by the DOJ that addressed the antitrust charges raised. Well. Of course the judge disagrees with that since almost all of the evidence submitted by the DOJ was in fact admissible. But, why did the Microsoft lawyer lie like that? Why make public statements that any lawyer would know were false?

I do not know. However, here is how that previous statement from Microsoft lawyers ties in with the current statements from Ballmer.

Corporations can be liable for making knowingly false statements for the purpose of increasing the value of their stock. Does a claim that a client will receive a favorable judgement constitute false information of this nature? Most likely not. Does a blank statement that no admissible evidence was submitted? It could. Clearly that has proven false. And, just as clearly all Microsoft lawyers (including the speaker on the court house steps) knew that. So are the public jesters intended only to prop up the price of Microsoft shares? Not exclusively, I am sure. But, in part they may have been offered for that reason.

Now, we hear Ballmer saying things that might lower that price. Are these statements offered to lower the liability of Microsoft they may otherwise have should a drop in Microsoft stock be precipitated by an unfavorable judgement? Would Ballmer do such a thing?

I can not think of any other reason for turning honest all of sudden (just weeks before the court decision is likely to be announced). Is it only stock manipulation? Is it only an attempt to lessen the liability for other charges which are likely to occur should Microsoft be found to have a monopoly and be somewhat restricted in the future? You know. An event which may legitimately lower the price of Microsoft Corporation shares.

Think about it.

(By the way, Stever Ballmer has also said that Microsoft does not give away software contradicting the false claims that IE is free.)

Sep 22, 1999

11:55 AM PDT - Microsoft mocks antitrust law and insults consumers (Also see.)

Microsoft ignores the needs of the majority of its own customers and then lies about it.

Missing from Microsoft final arguments is any reference to the fact that many OEMs and consumers do not want to buy only Microsoft products. Neither do they want competitors to be precluded from the marketplace.

Microsoft just assumes that only they can write software and for some silly reason should be the only permitted to sell them.

The antitrust laws specifically are written to protect competition and competitors from illegal acts of monopolists. That is what the antitrust laws are there to do.

What does the Microsoft say? They tried to mislead the court and the public into thinking that the antitrust laws are not violated when consumer harm is not proven. That is false. The preclusion of competition is what is at issue.

If Microsoft Corporation or anyone else wants to re-write the antitrust laws, they have every right to try to lobby congress to do that. But, to suggest that the lack of direct proof of harm to competitors is required of the DOJ is not only misleading but highly deceitful. The judge is not fooled. The judge knows that the argument is out of order and incorrect.

If consumer harm was at issue it would in fact be addressed by the DOJ.

Just line up the 80% or so of all browser users and ask them if they want to involuntarily be forced to run IE from here on out.

Just line up consumers who do not want browsers on their computers and ask them if they want a slower machine to do they work with or whether they would prefer a $35 discount for leaving the browser at the store. Did the Microsoft lawyer address those consumers? No. He ignored them.

Microsoft Corporation ignores completely the basic rights of consumers. And, then they get up and lie about it to the judge. They claim that consumers are not harmed by the forced sale of IE.

Consumers are always harmed by the forced sale of any product you want to name.

Case of bubble gum? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

Leather seats in your car? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

Bottle of aspirin? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

A soft pillow for your bed? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

A copy of Windows? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

A copy of IE? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

A copy of WordPerfect? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

A GPS unit for your car? Yes. A forced sale is harmful.

Microsoft lied. There is no nice way to put it. Microsoft claimed consumers were not harmed. But, millions and millions of consumers are in fact harmed.

Again, consumer harm does not need to be proven by the DOJ. That harm is in fact assumed as a matter of law when harm to competitors and competition is proven. The DOJ has done that. Anyone can easily see that competition has been precluded. Even the really slow learners can see that. (Most of the Microsoft supporters gloat as they see competition precluded.)

Microsoft Corporation has misrepresented antitrust law simply to rally its supporters. Microsoft Corporation has presented false evidence in this case. And, Microsoft Corporation has lied about the evidence that is creditable.

Microsoft Corporation mocks antitrust law and insults consumers and its own customers.

Sep 21, 1999

5:40 PM PDT - And, the Microsoft lawyers claim to be ignorant about antitrust law ... oh well

Microsoft missed the boat completely.

The problem with Microsoft's argument is that antitrust laws are designed to protect competitors. They are not consumer protection laws.

Microsoft lawyers know that but lied about it anyway.

1:22 PM PDT - The DOJ makes it final pitch.

A report from ZDnet.

A report from the San Jose Mercury News.

When a complete copy of the final arguments are available in print I will review them in detail.

11:22 AM PDT - In time Linux will compete with Windows

Microsoft's bloat can kill it off.

There is little doubt that Microsoft's plan to preclude competition by bundling applications with the OS should and will fail. Microsoft is already highly sensitive to that issue. In court, they tried like hell to convince the judge that a typical PC costs $2000 or more. But, why? Do they not know that systems are getting much cheaper than that?

Of course they do. But, somehow they have fool the judge into thinking that a big fat bundle of software forced upon all consumers is not bad or harmful. After all, they have already lied to the public that consumers are not being harmed by Microsoft Corporation.

Then comes Linux. It costs next to nothing and makes Windows look like the monopoly product it truly is. The suggested retail price for Windows 98 is $200. Sure, you can buy it for less. But, Linux sells for $60-75 or free if you want to download it.

However, the real point of this article was that Linux is a much better product for the low end than Windows will ever be. It is much more flexible. It can be customized for special applications much easier. And, it is clearly more reliable than Windows. Linux has a real future.

My guess is that more than one OEM will take Linux and offer systems highly competitive to Windows. But, that will take time. As that occurs Microsoft will be forced to lower its price. First it will have to unbundled applications from the OS helping to get the price down where consumers can afford it. And, then it will have to lower the price further just to compete on the basis of price.

Right now Microsoft may lie about competition in court in a vain attempt to avoid legal liability for illegal acts, but Microsoft's acts tell you the truth. Today, they have a monopoly and use that monopoly power to preclude every competitor they can.

I can hardly wait until the Microsoft monopoly case gets up to the Supreme Court. All the justices gather around to evaluate the biggest antitrust case to be consider in a long time. The Chief casually asks the justices "who all uses Windows now?". Then he paused a moment and says ‘next case".

Sep 20, 1999

2:57 PM PDT - One side will win. It should be the people

Of course the United States should win the antitrust case. Not only because the facts and law favor that decision but also because that decision would benefit consumers immensely.

Consumers really do need choices available to them. They need to have the option to buy an OS without a browser and they need to have the option to buy an OS without networking bundled in as well.

I am encouraged by some of the wording of the above article in the San Jose Mercury News which refers to a possible remedy of letting other companies develop and sell the Windows system. I can not ascertain precisely which alternatives may be seriously under consideration based upon this article but it sounds a bit like my own suggestion of selling the Windows code base to 6 or 8 major players in the industry. Under my suggestion a common standards body would be formed to control the direction of the technology but not be involved with any marketing or pricing of such products. That would be left up to the individual companies.

We will see when the possible remedies are given a bit more detail.

Hopefully, the judge will set addition time to hear from a number of industry and economic experts before rushing into a half baked solution. What he intends to do in that regard is unclear. However, there are a number of experts which could be jointly agreed to by both sides for testimony and cross examination.

11:55 AM PDT - As long as it is black?

As long as it is "black"?

Now Ford and Microsoft joining hands is really ironical.

If Microsoft going to require all Fords bought through their new venture to sport leather seats and GPS units? You know. Like Microsoft forces all PCs to sport Microsoft Networking and Microsoft IE all at the expense of the consumer without any regard for their needs?

I wonder if Bill Gates will be required to buy one and drive it the exclusion of all other cars?

Bill Gates forces consumers to run IE regardless of their needs. So, I just assume that Microsoft will attempt to force everyone to buy a black Ford with everything included just like they market Windows.

Oh. But, it will not work with cars. The automobile industry has competition. That is very different than a monopoly market where Microsoft decides what every consumer must purchase and how much they pay.

Sep 18, 1999

10:21 AM PDT - Microsoft back in court again misrepresenting the law and their acts

Proof of harm NOT required.

{For the slow learners: This note will clarify the misconception that Microsoft is making regarding the proof of harm in antitrust litigation.]

Antitrust laws are not consumer protection laws. Therefore actual proof of harm to consumers is not required. This concept is similar to that found in murder charges. To convict someone of murder no proof of motive is required either.

Microsoft Corporation has intentionally misrepresented this fact simply to encourage popular support against the application of the law to Microsoft's activities. That is fine, but it is only a "ra ra" speech and little more.

Antitrust laws, the ones Microsoft Corporation is being charged with violations only require that harm to competitors be shown. It is the use of monopoly power in precluding competition that is being tested not the use of monopoly power in harming consumers.

The reason for this is very simple. Harm to consumers is presumed to be the case when competitors are removed or precluded. If you really are slow to figure this out, read a couple of the articles regarding competition in the chip market between Intel and AMD. In that market it is extremely easy to see just how beneficial real competition is for the consumer. Just in the last several weeks both AMD and Intel substantially reduced the cost for consumers simply due to real price competition. In the Microsoft antitrust case, employees of Microsoft even testified that no such competition affected any of their pricing decisions regarding their monopoly product, the consumer OS. None. That according to Microsoft.

So what is all this "bro ha ha" from Microsoft about hot harming consumers anyway? Well, it is all based upon the false claim from the PR department at Microsoft that IE is a free product. If IE costs money each time a consumer is required to purchase it, that would be direct financial harm on day one for that consumer. So. We are talking about direct financial harm to millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of consumers based simply upon the cost of IE.

How much does IE cost?

Microsoft says that 20% of all OS revenue (including NT server) is attributed to "unearned revenue" which Microsoft also says includes IE. So, is IE free? Not according to Microsoft.

Microsoft told Compaq that the price of windows was being increased to compensate for added features in Windows. Even using the language of Microsoft you would have to conclude that IE is clearly an added feature (no matter what else you call it).

So what is this claim all about in suggesting that IE is free? IE is not free. It is no more free than the Networking technologies that Microsoft also forces all consumers to buy even if they have only one PC to their name.

Deceit. Pure deceit. Deceit uses to discourage consumers from objecting to the price and bundling of applications with Windows.

Why? Because it has no other function. Whether IE is free or costs $140 is just not relevant for the antitrust trial. There is no requirement to prove harm to consumers. Therefore, suggesting IE is free is only suggesting ideas to the public. The judge and all lawyers know that antitrust law is about precluding competitors and has little or nothing to do with consumer harm. The laws were written that way intentionally. Standard Oil was not overcharging consumers. They were precluding competitors from the marketplace in an identical fashion to Microsoft Corporation.

In fact, Microsoft Corporation is so set upon using deceit to discourage consumer rejection of their bundled product that they are in fact setting themselves up for the predatory price charges. Predatory prices (zero prices for the slow learners) are a part of antitrust law. Predatory prices do in fact preclude competitors. Predatory prices required Netscape not only to give up its source code but also required it to be subject to merger if the company was to remain viable. This same event would likely occur to your company if you could no longer sell your products.

And, what is deceit called when used to get "your money"? In short, it is called fraud.

So while Microsoft spends money in Washington DC trying to get favorable treatment for their illegal acts, they are simultaneously committing fraud with their own customers. The DOJ will not point this out. There current action is based upon antitrust violations not consumer fraud.

And, most importantly every time that Microsoft Corporation suggests that consumer harm has not been proven they are trying to misrepresent the vary nature of the laws they are being charged with violating. All of the Microsoft Corporation lawyers know this for a fact. After all, they are lawyers, right? Even the economist hired by Microsoft to mislead the public knows that consumer harm is not required to be proven for antitrust violations. But, he clearly wants to fool the public into thinking so.

Will the DOJ argue that harm has been caused? Oh sure. Just like in murder cases, proof of motive is very useful in educating the court. But, absence of motive is no defense. In antitrust law, the absence of proof of consumer harm is likewise no defense. Microsoft Corporation wants you to think it is. But, they seem to be lying a lot lately about this case.

Sept 17, 1999

9:17 AM PDT - eBay picks up competition. Microsoft should too

Competition is great. Too bad we do not have anything like that to keep the price of Microsoft software down.

[For the slow learners: This note will focus upon the competitive aspects of the article and draw a comparison between markets when competition exists and when it does not.]

Is eBay doomed as others enter the marketplace? Not likely, but they will have added incentives to further improve their service or keep it running while items are selling.

It sounds like price competition may take place as well. That usually does occur when competition exists.

Contrast this situation with the consumer OS marketplace where only Microsoft is prevalent. (Oh, Apple is still around buy few Intel/AMD customers can easily buy an Apple product if they wanted to. Besides, Apple is often times the premium priced product.)

But, what would happen if an OEM like Dell or Gateway could offer a PC without a browser and without networking (few use networking at home on a single computer anyway) for a fat $50 less? At the low end, that $50 less could be highly significant. What about offering a PC without the silly card game and system utilities that few consumers ever use anyway? Another $20 could be taken off the price of the minimum PC.

That is what competition brings.

The lack of competition (a monopoly) means that everyone must pay for the entire bundle of products that the only seller wants to make sure everyone has. How much do you think you would pay for ISP services if only one company was permitted to offer it? Remember how much long distance used to cost? Remember when you had no choice of the provider?

If you think you might like to try another auction site, you must be really interested in the price reductions that will come about when the monopolist can no longer control how many products you must buy at a minimum and at the same time decide how much you have to pay.

Sept 16, 1999

10:30 AM PDT - Will Microsoft collapse under its own weight?

Collapsing under its own weight?

It would appear that way. Perhaps the only way to save Microsoft Corporation is to dismantle it completely?

I attended a talk given by Tod Nielsen, Microsoft's Vice President of Developer Marketing last night at a meeting of the SDF, Software Development Forum (www.sdforum.org).

It appeared to me that Microsoft has taken an approach of simply blasting the industry with everything it can possibly develop hoping that only Windows systems can withstand the impact. Bundle more and more into all products. And, make all products require other Microsoft products.

In other words, substantially increasing the barriers to entry for any one even thinking of offering a consumer OS alternative. Force consumers to buy all Microsoft technology. And, of course, contrary to the trend of almost everyone else in the industry to support the customer rather than only their own products, Microsoft Corporation will try very hard to be more and more proprietary. They may use standards that are not proprietary but they will ignore consumers who are not 100% Microsoft customers. Oh. They will reach out and try to force the sale of Microsoft products on everyone. But, should a company want to combine technologies, it will be hands off.

It is painfully obvious that Microsoft wants all solutions not 100% Microsoft to fail.

Microsoft can do as it wishes until it is dismantled. Customers would do themselves a favor to look at the strategies of other companies who are trying to focus upon serving the customer not simply forcing a proprietary solution upon everyone. Look to companies like IBM, HP and even Sun as well as others. They focus upon the needs of the customer. If a NT solution is best, they can provide it. If a Linux solution is best, they can provide it. If a Unix solution is best, they can provide it. If a network solution is best, they can provide.

Microsoft will go the way of the do-do bird. And, it might do it under its own weight.

8:40 AM PDT - Do you accept charity from organized crime?

More "monopoly money" on the table?

[For the slow learners: The note will contrast the apparent public relations effort by Bill Gates and Microsoft of giving away money to charity and education with the alternative route of actually providing a valuable roll model for young people all over the world.]

Role models like Bill Gates really should lead by example not by giving away illegal profits to charity and educational institutions or scholarships.

Just what is Bill Gates and Microsoft trying to tell the youth of this country anyway?

Microsoft Corporation violates the laws of some 19 states and federal antitrust laws and then wants people to think he is some upstanding citizen? You know, what is absolutely clear is the legal plan of Microsoft Corporation to ignore all laws until the Supreme Court of the United States specifically gives Bill Gates and Microsoft Corporation a written and specific order to abide by the law.

That is a role model?

Microsoft Corporation also ignores direct notice from AOL and attempts to hack into the AOL IM service without permission. That is a "role model"? Microsoft Corporation by its very acts promote and encourage illegal hacking. They do it themselves, intentionally. For profit. Is not the money being given away in this main article the profits from illegal activity? It sure is.

Microsoft and Bill Gates are teaching the youth of this country to ignore all laws that might get into your way to earn the mighty dollar.

I hate to make comparisons between organized crime and Gates family. But, organized crime is precisely what Microsoft Corporate plan reminds me of. Organized crime and Microsoft both ignore laws as they deem profitable. Organized crime and Microsoft both donate large amounts of money to their church and other charitable ventures.

I do not object to the charity. I only object to the violate of law. And, in this specific case where the values of the youth are being isolated out as having value, I object to the unethical and illegal acts of Microsoft which violate the laws of others and which encourage similar illegal acts by their very leadership.

Microsoft Corporation is a corrupt company. Their acts encourage others to likewise ignore laws and simply take whatever they can from whomever they can without regard to the rights of others.

Sept 15, 1999 -

9:32 AM PDT - Microsoft buys out another potential competitor

"Monopoly money" speaks very loudly.

[For the slow learners: This note will discuss the ability of Microsoft to buy out other software companies and the affect that has on software developers. This note will also make a note of the obviously overpriced Microsoft products.]

For some time now many computer software startups have only one thing to look forward to. That is being bought out by the monopolist, Microsoft. It used to be that any company that did not want to plan only on their own growth could look forward to going public or being bought by a number of existing well established companies.

However, as Microsoft illegally tightens it grip on the market, many companies just assume that either they sell out to Microsoft or go under in the end.

Star being bought by Sun is an exception.

But, just why do you think so many independent developers write only for the Microsoft platform? Sure, the market is bigger. But, the big payout is going public or being bought out. If Microsoft is the only company with the monopoly money and the muscle to force the sale of even inferior products, Microsoft will be the only bidder. And, of course, any company in that same market has their days numbered.

It is no coincidence that the only real apparent competition to Microsoft has had to come from products given way free (IE. Linux, Communicator and now Star).

It does prove one thing, Microsoft products are highly overpriced.

Linux is much cheaper, Communicator is much cheaper (even Microsoft says in their financial reports that cash money is allocated to IE when sold as part of Windows 98). And, now Star is much cheaper. WordPerfect is also much lower in cost.

What was the name of that so-called economist that falsely claimed consumers are not being hurt by Microsoft? What was his name?

Sept 13, 1999 -

5:15 PM PDT - Compaq announces lower system prices

Sounds like Compaq would love to be able to offer a PC with IE removed.

[For the slow learners: This message will compare or contrast the price of the PC today with what they could be if OEMs could offer a less expensive or competitive copy of the consumer OS.]

Actually they should be able to remove that silly card game too and offer a PC at a lower price. How much less? Well. It is hard telling. But, Microsoft told Compaq it was going to charge them more because of "added features" and IE is clearly a feature and clearly added.

I can imagine that Compaq might want to offer a "browser less" version of their PC. Certainly, if Dell offered one they would. If both Dell and Compaq require everyone to buy IE then both of their systems are going to cost more than otherwise.

Of course business machines might want networking software too. But, many corporations might want superior networking capabilities and not the inferior brand. So until either Compaq or Dell can offer an PC without bundled networking the basic machine prices will remain high.

Just today and last Friday you have seen articles on the price reductions for processor chips from Intel and AMD. Now we see price reductions from Compaq and Dell.

If competition existed instead of a monopoly on the OS, the price could be reduced even further. That is what real competition does.

Okay. Everyone should be up to speed on the relative merits of competition versus monopolies.

3:05 PM PdT - Intel reacts again to price competition from AMD.

Is not real competition great?

[For the slow learners: This note will compare the relative consumer benefits realized when competition exists in a market versus when a monopoly exists in a market. It will also point out a few ways to know the difference.]

This is the second time in almost as many weeks that Intel has announced a price decrease simply because of competitive pressures from AMD. AMD announced changes last week on Friday as I recall. Now Intel reacts again.

Would it not be nice if such competition existed in the consumer OS marketplace. You know. Price reductions announced by one company and then the other companies also reduce their prices as well. That would be really nice for consumers. That would be competition.

What would it be like in the chip business if competition did not exist? Well. I would guess that prices reductions would never occur. Chances are Intel would be charging the same high price it did over 10 years ago.

Can any one think of a product or service closely related to the computer chips where price reductions have *NEVER* been announced? Can any one think of a product where the company claims benefits for changing the same price year after year after year? If anyone can, it certainly would be rather strong proof that no competition exists at all in that business.

Since the censors working for ZD try very hard not to publish any TalkBack articles putting certain companies in a bad light, no company names will be mentioned here.

However, if you try very hard and read all the articles published by ZD over the past week or so, one or more company names may pop out.

Hint: When competition has no affect on prices, you almost always have a monopoly. In fact, one of the tests as to whether you have a monopoly or not is based upon the existence or non-existence of price competition.

Just off hand, I would guess that Intel and AMD think they each have competition.

I could be wrong. Lately some really stupid claims have been showing up in the news. Not necessarily in the TalkBack sections. Sometimes they are censored. Sometimes even the most logical of all claims possible get censored too. So, you will just have to use your own judgment in evaluating what you read.

5:10 AM PDT - Microsoft surprises the world by outlandish claims of not having a monopoly

No Monopoly? Really? I could never have guessed.

[Attention Slow Learners: This article will draw comparisons between the various markets in the computer hardware area where competition does exist (no monopoly) and those markets in the computer software area where competition does not exit (monopoly).]

Now, take a look at Microsoft's main contention in the antitrust case. They claim Microsoft does not have a monopoly.

Well. Others articles published by ZD on this date and on previous dates discuss other markets where competition really does exist. The chip market is an example. AMD and Intel do in fact compete both price and performance wise and (as of today) AMD just announced a drop in price for a number of its chips. A week or so ago, Intel did the same. Sounds like competition is alive and well in the chip business. Sounds like consumers truly benefit from the competition via lower and lower prices.

But, Microsoft claims it has no monopoly and it has competition. Huh? Have the prices for consumer operating systems also declined 10%-20%-30% per year, each and every year for the last 10 years or so? You know. The same kind of drop in price that competition in the hardware business has caused? Have disc prices dropped? Have memory prices dropped? Have CD-Roms dropped in price? Have Apples dropped in price? Every single time I have looked, the answer is "yes".

But, has the cost of Microsoft products dropped a comparable amount? Microsoft in this very article is suggesting that consumers should believe that they do not have a monopoly and that competition is alive and well in Microsoft's market.

Well? Microsoft Corporation has actually claimed that the price of Windows has remained the same to consumers. That is not a drop at all. Microsoft Corporation has also told Compaq that Windows will cost them more over time, not less, but MORE. That is a price increase for those of you who failed even the low level math classes.

And, what about the price that IBM has to pay for Windows? The evidence in the trial mentioned in this article where Microsoft claims not to have a monopoly proves that IBM was forced to pay more for Windows that other large OEMs. Not less. But, more.

How do you get to paying more and higher prices overtime?

For the real slow learners, it via monopoly power and not by competition.

So. What will the judge decide?

Well. No one really knows but himself. However, if the judge were reading this article on ZD and glanced over the claims suggested by Microsoft Corporation, I would expect to find him laughing. Laughing out load, actually. Lol.

Why do you suppose that Microsoft Corporation wants to make obviously false claims regarding its monopoly power? Monopolies themselves are not illegal. It is only the conduct you engage in while having monopoly power that is illegal.

My guess?

Microsoft Corporation knows its conduct violates the antitrust laws and its only hope is to fool the court into thinking competition exists in the consumer OS marketplace.

Even consumers are not that gullible. All consumers know for a fact that when they shop for a computer down at the computer store, their choices are extremely limited. They can pick from Apple or Microsoft. If they pick Apple, they do not benefit from the vigorous competition between AMD and Intel (at least not directly). If they pick Intel or AMD, they know they have little or no choice by to buy the monopoly product. It is the only one offered by the store for pre installation. That is it. All consumers know they can not pick Java as their OS. All consumers know they can not pick Linux as their OS (no applications on the shelf). All consumers know that they can not pick OS/2 (again, no applications on the shelf). And, the smart ones even know they can not pick NT either (Qwest nor AOL will support NT).

Consumers have no practical choice at all.

Yet, look at what Microsoft claims?

That is funny.

Home - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.