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 22, 1999 - Friday

10:35 AM PDT - Local monopolies in broadband are not required nor a good idea

"More monopolies" not required at all.

AT&T may argue that it needs a local monopoly to cover the cost of the cable but it is dead wrong.

It is no more necessary for AT&T to have a monopoly with broadband services on cable than it is for a local phone company to have a monopoly on long distance services for those same consumers.

If independent ISVs want to provide access via cable there is no reason why they can not pay a fair amount to the cable company for the cable access. ISV services absolutely do not need to be bundled with the cable.

The only reason AT&T makes that argument is that they want another local monopoly.

10:00 AM PDT - Competition does benefit consumers. Monopolies harm consumers. (Also read.)

Competition anyone?

Monopolies do not benefit consumers, competition does. Anyone can see that. It is plain as day.

The industry absolutely needs antitrust protection against any monopolist that seeks only to prevent a competitor from selling their products. The consumer OS market is a clear example of what happens when competitors are precluded from the market.

In the consumer OS market everyone must buy either a Microsoft OS or an Apple OS. And, in both cases they are forced to buy IE. IE is simply the monopolist's brand of internet technology. All consumers are being literally forced to buy the Microsoft brand of that product. Apple helps force the sale. Intuit helps force the sale. AOL helps force the sale.

Even if your computer will not log onto the internet, you are in fact forced to buy that product.

Maybe a direct order from the Supreme Court of the United States will be required to stop Microsoft Corporation from forcing the sale of its products. (They have already suggested they will ignore anything that the trial judge tells them. They have already ignored their own consent decree and they signed off on it.)

The OS market needs competition too. It needs quality competition. It needs price competition. It needs choices for consumers. If you can buy a car with hundreds of models, colors, features, accessories, prices and styles then clearly the consumer can easily decide what version of OS is best suited for their own needs. Microsoft prevents that simply so that can force the sale of their brand of products.

Consumers now have an enormous choice of hardware alternatives. They clearly should have just as many software choices. Some should cost more. Some should cost less. But, never should choice not exist as it does today. Today, the monopolist Microsoft Corporation prevents not only the choice of products but also sets the price as well.

The antitrust laws can fix that if you support it.

Oct 21, 1999 - Thursday

10:53 AM PDT - Microsoft has not liked the facts of this case from the beginning

Facts will favor the DOJ.

The only real question (in my opinion) is whether any of the proposed facts by Microsoft will be "found to be true" by the judge.

The obvious ones that will certainly by on the list include that Microsoft has a monopoly in the Intel/AMD PC consumer OS marketplace. (Or, at least that they possess monopoly power.) The second most obvious is that Microsoft tried to use that power to gain a second monopoly in internet browsers. The first determination will be based upon a finding that Microsoft has more than 70% of the Intel/PC consumer OS market. The second determination will be based upon a finding that Microsoft has achieve at least a 50% share of the browser market.

What the judge will not decide is how good or bad the various products are. He will not decide that Navigator is a good browser or that IE is a bad one. Nor will he decide the reverse.

Essentially, the judge will pick and choose facts from the two submissions by Microsoft and the DOJ. Those suggested facts that may or may not be true but are not relevant to the case will be ignored.

I predict that the findings from the judge will be taken primarily from the proposed findings from the DOJ. The reason is a simple one. The DOJ's proposed findings relate to antitrust law. Much of what Microsoft has claimed and said in court does not.

Anyone can read the proposed findings from Microsoft and agree or disagree whether they are true. But being true or not is not the test. The proposed finding of fact has to relate to antitrust law. If it does not, it will be meaningless anyway.

Oct 20, 1999 - Wednesday

10:30 AM PDT - Florida county favors bundling?

Bundling is inherently unfair to consumers.

Bundling computer software is unfair and bundling cable services is unfair as well.

Read http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,79158-265182,00.html and

http://www.lamlaw.com/DOJvsMicrosoft/BundlingUnfair.html for more discussion.

I find it absolutely amazing how many people argue that a monopoly is going to provide the best selection of products and services. Open and fair competition does that, not monopolies. (Even when monopolists like Microsoft call witnesses on the stand, their testimony proves that competition benefits consumers not the lack of competition.) Right now, cable TV is simply a collection of local monopolies. All consumers in their location have little or no choice who they deal with.

If they are dissatisfied with customer service, they have no alternative.

If they are unhappy with the quality of the service, they have no alternative.

If they are unhappy with the prices charged, they have no alternative.

You would think that the long distance phone market would have taught the slow learners a few simply lessons. Fair and open competition improves the quality of products and lowers the price.

Yet. What do you see? Some people make up the most ridiculous arguments just so the consumer is denied their basic rights. And, the people who make up those silly arguments refuse to give up their own right to pick and choose the products they buy. (They only argue that "others" should be denied their rights.)

Oct 19, 1999 - Tuesday

5:30 PM PDT - Finding of facts is to be announced soon.

The prediction is that the finding of facts will highly favor the DOJ.

11:58 AM PDT - The internet will be everywhere. And, Microsoft will force all consumers to buy the Microsoft brand of internet technologies unless the Supreme Court issues an order for them to stop.

Antitrust protection is absolutely essential.

Yes. The internet will be major part of our lives if it is not already. It makes a lot of sense. And, it is very important that all superior technologies are offered fair and open opportunities to serve consumers.

It is for this reason that it is imperative that the antitrust actions now pending in court against Microsoft Corporation re-establish fair ground rules for all companies wishing to offer superior technologies. (No new laws are required. The ones we have now need only to be enforced.)

Bundling any application with the OS is inherently unfair to consumers. This has been proven to be the case. It is unfair to bundle networking technology as well as internet technology.

http://www.lamlaw.com/DOJvsMicrosoft/BundlingUnfair.html

No Microsoft supporter has even tried to explain to consumers how bundling IE with the OS is fair. They all (100%) know it is not. Neither has Microsoft Corporation attempted to explain how bundling is fair to consumers. In fact, Microsoft Corporation and its supporters ignore fairness to consumers. They force all consumers to buy the Microsoft brand products without any regard for the intended use of the computer. What the consumer will do with the computer is of no interest to Microsoft at all. That is proven to be the case. (See the above article.)

In fact, Microsoft current business plan is to force 100% of all consumers to buy IE until the Supreme Court of the United States gives them a specific order to stop. Until then they will ignore consumers completely. Microsoft will simply force the sale of their technology. It is unfair. It is likely to be found in court to be illegal. But, what is clear for all to see, is that Microsoft Corporation simply does not care about consumers at all. Microsoft will not permit any consumer to avoid purchasing IE unless the Supreme Court makes them stop forcing the sale.

Oct 18, 1999 - Monday

12:15 PM PDT - Gates "surprised" by the DOJ filed suit?

Gates spoke with lawyers?

Sure he did. Bill Gates was not surprised by the DOJ law suit.

Maybe his lawyers calculated incorrectly, but surprise is the wrong word here. Bill Gates knew for a fact that he was ignoring the consent decree approved by Judge Jackson himself as well as the DOJ. (Microsoft Corporation even signed off on it. But, then they ignored it.)

If Bill Gates does not know the difference between fair and open competition and antitrust violations he really ought to spend more time with his lawyers. If his current lawyers do not know the difference, then they really ought to hire lawyers that do.

What is painfully obvious is that Microsoft Corporation has adopted a business plan that intentionally ignores all laws. If and when the Supreme Court of the United States issues an order forcing them to comply with the law, then and only then will they do so.

In the meantime, they plan to force consumers to buy the Microsoft brand of all products they can. Monopolists can do that. Monopolist do that.

Monopolist bundle unwanted products with monopoly products forcing all consumers to buy both. Microsoft has done that with networking (despite the fact that millions of consumers do not have LANs) and Microsoft has done that with internet technologies as well (despite the fact that not all PCs log onto the Internet).

Microsoft precludes competition using their monopoly power. That is why they are in court right now.

If Bill Gates claims to be surprised, he is lying. (No wonder he refused to testify.)

11:25 AM PDT - Choices for cable modems and boxes illustrate a key point about bundling products

"One box for all is unfair."

It is not a question whether all of these features will be integrated into a single box or not. I am sure some manufacturers will offer a combination of products.

The question is whether only the "single box" solution will be available. That answer is clearly no.

Bundling is by its very nature unfair. Bundling in this sense means products only offered as a bundle.

Take Microsoft networking for example. Microsoft's OS is only available when bundled with their brand of networking (just like the internet technologies). That is the only way it comes. And, it is unfair to consumers.

Why?

Unbundling networking technology from the OS is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers without a LAN (home users and many businesses) would prefer a lower cost version of the OS and 2) those who want to operate a LAN all prefer to pick and choose the technology they implement.

Absolutely no one wants to forgo their right to pick and choose their software.

So which will it be in cable boxes? Both. Some will offer a combination of products and some will offer separate components. And, that is the way it should be. Only when you have a monopoly do you find products of questionable value being force sold on all consumers.

I have asked many Microsoft supporters to explain to consumers how bundling network or internet technologies is fair to consumers. Not a single one has ever done so. They all seem to know that bundling is "unfair" in fact.

Home - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.