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.

Nov 19, 1999 - Friday

7:25 PM PST - Judge Posner asked to serve as mediator

Posner as mediator would be good.

Appointment of a mediator can be very beneficial.

One of the most important roles a mediator can play is to bring the two parties in from their most extreme positions. Bring a little reality into the case in other words.

The real problem that Microsoft has suffered from is the unwillingness to acknowledge the laws they are accused of violating. I assume they know about antitrust law but their public statements tend to prove otherwise.

And, I assume that if the DOJ takes a position that can not be sustained in court, Judge Posner will advise them of that as well.

Personally, I do not hold out any particular comfort in thinking that a settlement might be possible. I frankly doubt it. However, a settlement would benefit everyone concerned including consumers, competitors and Microsoft Corporation.

12:10 PM PST - The official Gates response to the findings of fact? (with my commentary in blue italics, of course)

MR. GATES:

Good evening. I'd like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks about the findings of fact issued by the Court.

It's important to recognize that today's filing is just one step in an ongoing legal process that has many steps remaining.

True. Microsoft can continue forcing the sale of products upon all consumers until the Supreme Court of the United States gives Microsoft Corporation a specific order to stop. That is our legal system. You, Bill Gates can continue to force consumers to buy the Microsoft brand of key products until then. It is pretty clear you will do that to consumers.

We respectfully disagree with a number of the Court's findings, and believe the American legal system ultimately will affirm that Microsoft's actions and innovations were fair and legal, and have brought tremendous benefits to millions of consumers.

Forcing consumers to buy the Microsoft brand of a product benefits them? All consumers I know (including the most ardent of the Microsoft supporters) insist upon picking and choosing their own software. Obviously, Microsoft thinks they should be denied that right and in fact is acting to enforce the removal of that right.

The Court's findings do acknowledge that Microsoft's actions accelerated the development of the Internet, reduced the cost to consumers and improved the quality of web-browsing software. Microsoft competes vigorously, and fairly.

So did the actions of Netscape. Why was it necesssary to remove them from the marketplace? Hint: That is what this antitrust case is about. Both IE and Navigator provide user benefits as does all software.

Does Microsoft think they can force consumers to take medicine just because it benefits some?

Microsoft is committed to resolving this case in a fair and responsible manner, while ensuring that the principles of consumer benefit and innovation are protected.

Hey. Ask your lawyers. Antitrust law is about protecting competitors and competition. Consumer benefit nor innovation are relevant to antitrust law nor do they provide excuses for violations of that law. Ask your lawyers. You pay them enough. And, they really should know and understand the law Microsoft is charged with violating.

This lawsuit is fundamentally about one question: can a successful American company continue to improve its products for the benefit of consumers? That is precisely what Microsoft did by developing new versions of the Windows operating system with built-in support for the Internet.

What about Netscape? Netscape was a successful American company providing enormous benefits for consumers.

Is Microsoft Corporation so self centered and unrealistic to think it is the only company in the industry?

Bundling an application just so that you can force its sale upon consumers is highly deceitful and directly harmful.

You really should have bundled Office Pro with the OS. Or, is that the next trick you have for precluding competitors?

Paul Allen and I started Microsoft with the simple idea that technology can improve people's lives. Over the past 25 years, Microsoft has helped create a broad industry of literally thousands of companies. Together, we've made PCs more affordable, more widely available, more powerful, and easy to use. I'm proud to be part of an industry that is contributing so much to education, productivity and economic growth.

PCs are not cheaper today because of Microsoft. Hardware has dropped in price. But, the price of the consumer OS from Microsoft has not. In fact, the Microsoft product is just about the only product related to PCs that has not dropped in price.

"Are you really this slow?"

You can walk into any computer store and see the results. Every day, our industry is creating innovations and providing amazing benefits for consumers -- and prices have never been lower. New companies, mergers and alliances are bringing fundamental and dramatic changes to the marketplace all the time.

No thanks to Microsoft. Microsoft charges just as much or more than it ever has.

I can not believe someone can be this dumb to not know that.

Our industry is the most dynamic and competitive in America, and consumers are the big winners. Microsoft's products are popular because we've focused on our customers and innovated to meet their needs. But we know we must continually go further to improve our products because in this industry, no one has a guaranteed position.

Microsoft ignores key segments of the industry. Microsoft ignores those consumers without a internet connection forcing them to buy unwanted and unneeded products. Microsoft also ignores those consumers who prefer other brands for some applications.

Because of our success, we understand that Microsoft is held to a high standard, and we accept that responsibility. We continue to be guided by the most basic American values: innovation, integrity, serving customers, partnership, quality, and giving back to the community.

What the laws of some 19 States and the Federal Government? Do the laws count?

As we work to resolve this case, Microsoft's 30,000 employees are focused on developing new innovations, building great products, delivering quality service, and helping others in our industry create a future of opportunity for consumers.

Could you find one of those employees who abides by the law, any law?

With the upcoming launch of Windows 2000 and our efforts to advance further the potential of the Internet, Microsoft remains totally committed to delivering to consumers the full potential of the Information Age through great software and services.

As long as everyone is forced to buy the Microsoft brand of all their systems and applications?

Thank you.

You are welcome. Now, listen to your legal counsel. You might learn something.

9:30 AM PST - Some scheduling details and the big picture.

Divesting the browser is a start.

However, handing a dominant product over to any one company is just moving the monopoly around. IE, as a product, should be sold non-exclusively to between 6 and 8 major players in the industry just as the Windows code base should be sold.

If the industry is going to have dominant technologies, those technologies should be true standards and NOT owned by any one company.

If Microsoft Corporation is truly in favor of common standards, they would not object.

The court does have the power to undo illegal gains. In this case, that power should be exercised.

Consumers deserve the benefits of open and fair competition in all the products they buy. That includes operating systems, networking technology, browser technology and ALL POSSIBLE INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES.

Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not have the interests of consumers in their mind.

Judge Jackson was absolutely correct in one important observation of fact: Microsoft Corporation has distorted competition. That "distortion" has seriously harm all consumers now and will continue to harm all consumers in the future until it is corrected.

Nov 18, 1999 - Thursday

1:30 PM PST - The "Microsoft way" is to force consumers to buy the Microsoft brand of products.

Microsoft "forces" sales.... that is the Microsoft way.

Bundle your worst product with the monopoly product and require all consumers to buy it.

Microsoft even forces Apple customers to purchase IE.

And, Microsoft even requires that consumers actually run IE. Some consumers do not know that yet. Duh?

I get email everyday claiming that no one is forced to buy the Microsoft brand of products. Really? If you Windows, you must also buy the Microsoft brand of internet browser (even if you do not have a model or internet connection). If you buy from Apple, IE is right there. Microsoft forced Apple to sell IE or lose the product Microsoft Office for the Mac. That threat still hangs over Apple. As soon as Apple no longer promotes IE, Microsoft drops Mac for the Office. It is right there in the agreement.

The Microsoft way is to force consumers to buy the Microsoft brand of key products.

Read the findings of fact is you are still unclear on this issue.

12:45 PM PST - Consumer class action law suits are beginning to be filed.

I predicted this might be the case a long time ago.

11:30 AM PST - Monopolists at heart alright!

Does Microsoft Corporation only do what others do? Or, is the question, "Does Microsoft only do what other monopolists do"?

Would you like the opinion of one who teaches antitrust law at Stanford University?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/11/17/BU7904.DTL

The question is not whether others might do likewise should they own a monopoly. They might. But, the observation remains that monopolists are restrained in their conduct by the antitrust laws. In other words, the conduct that Microsoft Corporation must limit itself to is in fact different than the conduct for a non-monopolists.

Why?

Well. Non- monopolists can not bundle unwanted products and force their sale to consumers as Microsoft has clearly done with IE. Microsoft has forced themselves into a monopoly position with internet browsers. In fact the force continues every day we wait for a final resolution. Why do you think Microsoft would appeal? Even if they lose they have forced more and more consumers to buy the Microsoft Brand of the product.

Non-monopolists can not get other companies to disadvantage a competitor like Microsoft has done with Intuit, Intel, Apple, AOL, Compaq, Gateway, HP and others in regard to Netscape.

Non-monopolists simply can not do those things. And, that is the reason why those things are illegal for monopolists. And, this is also the reason why Microsoft Corporation wants so strongly to not be declared a monopolist. As long as they are not legally found to be a monopolist, they can continue unrestrained in their effort to force the sale of more Microsoft brand products.

10:40 AM PST - Microsoft Corporation can lobby but they can not finish a sentence.

"Bundling not innovative".

Product bundling is not innovative at all.

Bundling is inherently unfair to consumers because it takes away the choice that consumers demand they have for themselves.

The Microsoft PR machine for all its money simply can not and does not finish the following sentence:

Bundling networking technologies with the OS is fair to consumers because ...<their explanation of how and why bundling is fair goes here ...but they never do it.>.

How is unbundling fair?

Unbundling networking technologies from the OS is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers who do not operate a LAN prefer a lower cost operating system and 2) those who do operate a LAN prefer to pick and choose the networking technologies they buy and implement.

All consumers are harmed by bundling. 100% of them. It denies their choice.

The same sentence can be used for internet technologies:

Unbundling the browser from the OS is fair to consumers because 1) those consumers who do not plan to connect to the internet prefer a lower cost OS and 2) those who do plan to connect to the internet ALL prefer to pick and choose the browser application best suited for their needs.

All consumers are harmed by bundling. 100% of them. It denies their choice.

The Microsoft PR group could try to complete the following sentence...but they never do.

Bundling the browser with the OS is fair to consumers because ... < the Microsoft explanation of fairness to consumers would go here if they had one >.

Microsoft always fails to complete the sentence. They fail to even try to explain to the consumer how it is fair to them. Microsoft Corporation knows for a fact that bundling is NOT fair. That is why they can not finish the sentence.

Oh sometimes they try by ignoring consumers. But, they never explain to the consumer how it is fair to them (i.e. their own customers are completely and 100% ignored).

Go ahead, Microsoft. Finish the sentence. Tell consumers how and why product bundling is fair to them.

10:20 AM PST - I would have to agree that a settlement is not likely to occur anytime soon. (also read)

The DOJ should and must solve the problem. In this case, that means eliminating monopoly power. Microsoft Corporation on the other hand wants to insist upon retaining its monopoly power so that it can continue to preclude competing products from the marketplace.

Microsoft is dead wrong in its position. Microsoft wants to maintain the right to design its own operating system. If that is what they did, that would be alright. However, Microsoft Corporation has clearly demonstrated that it will just bundle key applications and subsystems with its monopoly operating system to make absolutely certain that other possibly superior technologies are kept from the market.

They have done this with their networking technologies preventing any market from developing for cross-platform networking capabilities. Blocking cross-platform solutions in networking, browsers, Java and other subsystems only strengthens their monopoly. When you make your systems incompatible with others, you force consumers to buy all Windows or all Apple or all Unix systems. And, if you must buy all of one brand, the dominant brand will almost always win out regardless of its merits. Judge Jackson was absolutely correct in finding that bundling IE and other technologies with the OS increases the barriers to entry for anyone hoping to enter the OS marketplace.

Microsoft Corporation will never restrain itself to writing only an OS. It just will not do it. It proved that when it flatly ignored the consent decree (which it in fact agreed to) clearly stating that the browser could not be made a prerequisite of the OS.

Microsoft Corporation has proven that it will never accept any divisions of products which permit competition. Nothing is more clear than that.

Bill Gates says he will not accept any resolution that do not let Microsoft put into its OS whatever it wants to include. That is the same as saying they want unlimited and unrestrained ability to bundle what ever products they want with the OS in order to preclude competition.

That should never be permitted. And, the only way to prevent it is to restructure Microsoft.

The best solution will be to sell off the windows code base to at least 6 to 8 industry players in open bidding. Then the remaining products should be put into separate companies offering development systems and specific applications.

Internet Explorer, the beneficiary of the illegal activity could also be sold outright 6 to 8 times or simply blocked from the market. Prior to the illegal activities it had about 20-25% of the market. And, the court has the power to undo illegal gains. It should in fact exercise that power.

9:00 AM PST - Microsoft Corporation's illegal activities continue to corrupt the industry.

It was "hacking" pure and simple.

Microsoft Corporation has no more right to use AOL's servers without permission than your neighbor has the right to drive your car whenever convenient.

Nice cover story though. At least some fools might believe it. True or not, it changes nothing. Microsoft Corporation sought to using hacking to gain a market advantage. The sad part is that it organized the conspiracy with its users to attempt to carry it out. That is organized hacking on a scale never attempted before.

Microsoft Corporation is truly corrupt. And, Microsoft Corporation is corrupting the youth of this country and of the world. By the leadership shown by Microsoft, many in this world think hacking is "okay" and acceptable. Just listen to the Microsoft advocates. Listen to what they say. They say it is okay to hack into AOL because ... <their excuse for violating the law goes here>.

Microsoft did the right thing by stopping. It clearly did the wrong thing by striking out with an illegal plan to attack AOL. Your company is next on Microsoft's list. Their attack and retreat moves are legendary. How many companies have suffered from illegal Microsoft Corporation activities? Go ahead, add to the list: Novell, Caldera, AOL, IBM, Apple, Intel, Intuit, Stac, Sun and ???

Microsoft Corporation is corrupting this industry.

8:39 AM PST - If you break up Microsoft, make sure you solve the problem.

Sell the Windows code base.

Selling the Windows code base to between 6 and 8 industry players will solve the monopoly problem. Splitting up Microsoft in three parts will not.

Windows code should be sold on a competitive open bid basis to at least 6 or 8 companies with established businesses. IBM, HP, Corel, Be, Caldera, Novell, Inprise, RedHat, Symantec, Dell, Compaq, Gateway, AOL, Oracle, Sun and others might all be interested in buying that product.

Overnight, the monopoly problem is solved and it is unlikely to return. What would those companies do with their non-exclusive copy? Well. It might depend. But, any company interested in marketing a consumer OS would want to join the standards body that will from that day forward decide what and how the OS functions.

You could also split up the rest of Microsoft along product lines but that might not be necessary. Microsoft power to force the sale of Microsoft brand products is based upon their OS. Once that is no longer a monopoly, all of the other applications are likely to be made available for Linux, OS/2 and the BeOS as well as others that might come along.

Nov 17, 1999 - Wednesday

11:00 AM PST - Gates open to settlement provided he can continue to violate the law?

"Simple double talk?"

Is Bill Gates serious? He is willing to discuss any resolution provided he can still bundle applications with Windows?

There are no issues involved in this case about the design of an operating system. The issues involve bundling applications with the OS in order to force the sale of the Microsoft brand of certain products. Both networking and internet technologies are bundled in this way effectively blocking all competing technology from the market. A number of utilities are likewise bundled.

Money, Office Pro and MS-SQL are the next applications to be bundled with the OS. And, why not anti-virus software? Why not just bundle that too? It will only wipe out two or three other companies.

Bundling applications has absolutely nothing to do with innovation or product design. Even employees of Microsoft testified that packaging was simply a marketing choice.

10:12 AM PST - "Just doing what everyone does?"

Almost all major corporations have an active antitrust prevention program. Microsoft does not.

If fact if you listen to Bill Gates over the past week or so he fully intends to use bundling as necessary to preclude any future competitor he happens to not like. It is okay to claim to want to innovate. However it is highly deceitful to intentially violate the antitrust laws and try to hide that conduct by claiming it is innovative. Bundling products is not innovative at all. Internet Explorer could be innovative. Bundling it with the OS to force the sale is not.

I am beginning to think that Bill Gates has a personal problem with reality. In this case, the reality happens to be the laws of this country. Either he fails to get competitent legal counsel or he just tells them what he will do and ignores the advice he does receive. And, of course, there are those lawyers who will argue any case if the client is willing to pay the legal bill.

Either that or he just asks them if enough money will make the antitrust laws go away. Their recent emphasis with the political front is evidence of their plan in that regard.

9:45 AM PST - What does a congressman and professor of Antitrust law think?

Read the article.

7:45 AM PST - Perhaps the industry does not revolve around Microsoft? Perhaps it never did?

The above article in the San Jose Mercury News is probably pretty accurate as far as how the industry views the recent findings of fact released in the antitrust case. Bill Gates may think that the industry should revolve around Microsoft and of course we all know he has ignored all laws that might limit the ability of the industry to do just that, but it never really has done that. And, it should not.

Bundling any application with the operating system is bad engineering, bad design and bad for consumers. In fact, bundling applications with the OS is inherently unfair to consumers. It does eliminate competitors. So, bundling with the OS does preclude competition.

In time, the industry will learn to avoid dealing with any company that refuses to follow the basic rules (i.e. abide by the law).

Nov 16, 1999 - Tuesday

3:30 PM PST - Does Microsoft always ignore the law?

Microsoft Corporation still out to sabotage Java as a trademark.

It is getting pretty obvious. Microsoft Corporation will and has attempted to sabotage the Java trademark by making certain that nothing Java on Windows will be cross-platform. Microsoft is also making certain than the "common user experience" that Microsoft Corporation so desperately insists that its OEMs in fact provide does not exist with Java applications.

You have to be a pretty slow learner not to understand Microsoft's duplicity and hypocrisy.

Oh well. Typical Microsoft Corporation thinking. If you do not own it, try to destroy it. To hell with the laws.

7:10 AM PST - Does Bill Gates even know what competition is?

Microsoft "forces" the sale of its media player.

I find it amazing how naive both the trade press and consumers can be about competing products.

One product, the Microsoft Media Player, is forced upon consumers and another, the RealPlayer is not, yet the press has been misguided into thinking that somehow these two products compete fairly. They do not. The RealPlayer may be doing okay but not one consumer is forced to buy it. All Microsoft consumers are forced to buy the Microsoft brand player.

This is Bill Gates idea of competition. Force every single consumer to first buy the Microsoft brand and let competitors see if their superior technology is enough to encourage consumers to buy a second model.

Bill Gates has a sick idea of what competition is. And, he is bound and determined to hire as many lawyers as necessary to make absolutely certain only his idea of competition exists in the marketplace. That is that all consumers MUST FIRST PURCHASE THE MICROSOFT BRAND BEFORE ANY OTHER PRODUCTS CAN BE EVALUATED.

The trade press is just gullible enough to help him out.

Nov 15, 1999 - Monday

1:10 PM PST - The Microsoft campaign of misinformation and deceit seems to be in high gear.

Apple was accounted for.

Judge Jackson said that even if must include Apple in the market it will not matter. He found that when you include Apple, Microsoft still has 80% of the market.

Is the Microsoft PR system feeding these articles to journalists? Or, do some journalist own too much Microsoft stock or have a problem with reality?

1:00 PM PST - A break up is required but not the one Microsoft would suggest or approve.

Solve the problem. I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft would agree to do that.

Solving the problem would require elimination of the monopoly power that Microsoft uses to force the sale of its products. A monopolist would never agree to do that.

Splitting up the company so that the power remains in tack is not likely to be accepted by the DOJ or the court.

The court has the power to undo the illegal gains achieved by Microsoft Corporation. It should in fact use that power to undo the monopoly position in browsers and when that is completed undo the remaining monopoly power in the consumer OS as well.

Consumers deserve no less.

11:35 AM PST - A field day for Microsoft antitrust law suits?

Sure. It could very well happen. I have gone on record for some time suggesting that a number of follow-up suits may follow the DOJ action. Suits could be based upon antitrust law or they could carry over into consumer fraud.

7:45 AM PST - Intuit still toeing the line at the request of the monopoly?

Intuit "is" Microsoft too?

Nice idea but Intuit is little more than a puppet for Microsoft. Remember when Microsoft tried to buy Intuit? The government objected and rightly so. But, in the end it mattered little. Intuit knows it is on the bubble. Should Microsoft bundle Money with their OS like they do all other critical applications (critical means that a competitor must be eliminated from the marketplace), Intuit is history. Netscape all be went away simply because Microsoft decided on the behalf of all consumers that IE will be purchased by everyone regardless of their needs. Microsoft Corporation can do that will Money too as soon as Intuit's help in rubbing out Netscape is no longer needed.

Microsoft Corporation engages in illegal activities and gets other corporations like Intuit to help out simply by telling them that is the way they can survive.

Bill Gates is a cold blooded monopolist the likes of which this country has not seen in many years. Look at his speech at Comdex. Not a word about illegal Microsoft conduct.

7:30 AM PST - To Bill Gates, "choice" only applies to devices which run the Monopoly products.

"Bill, choice applies at purchase."

Choice is not only about which device the consumer wants to run a Microsoft product on it is also about which software the consumer wants to run on the devices they buy.

Microsoft Corporate policy is to remove choice from consumers.

Microsoft Corporation spent an enormous amount of time and money trying to make sure that no company could earn revenue selling browsers. First, everyone was forced to buy the Microsoft brand. Then everyone buying Windows 98 was forced to maintain and actually use IE without regard to what the customer wanted in some instances. That forced all consumers to run IE regardless of their needs and learn other browsers too if they wanted their choice.

Bill Gates is not for "choice" at all. Bill Gates uses the ‘choice' word when he means to say exclusively Microsoft.

It is a highly deceitful campaign to fool consumers. And, many are indeed fooled.

They are fooled into buying the Microsoft brand. And, they are fooled into thinking their credit card has not taken a huge hit because of it.

Bill Gates does not talk about the antitrust trial simply because that would be talking about Microsoft's illegal business practices. Of course, he wants to fool consumers into ignoring their illegal activities.

Nov 13, 1999 - Saturday

7:45 PM PST - The problem needs to be fixed.

Be sure to fix the problem.

The problem is with the corrupt Microsoft management. Microsoft Corporation is all too willing to blatantly violate any law that might limit their ability to preclude competitors or competition. Thus the remedy must remove the "monopolists" from power. Bill Gates himself said he will agree with no settlement unless he retains the right to force the sale of IE upon all consumers.

Publishing the source code might be useful to some competitors but will do nothing to address the real problem within Microsoft Corporation. That problem is a corrupt management all too eager to violate any law that gets into their way. They lie to consumers, misrepresent reality, use fraud and deceit to sell products and actually pay people to confuse the public about the real issues in court.

Auctioning off the source code for Windows would work but it needs to be done to 6 or 8 bidders not just 2 or 3. All major companies in the industry should have an opportunity to buy that code base for their own use and for OEM sales. Selling the code base 6 or 8 times will assure that the companies holding that source code do not just kill each other off in a few years leaving only one company left with the monopoly again. It must be sold to HP, IBM, Corel, Caldera, Novell, Sun, AOL, Inprise, Symantec, Dell, Gateway and almost any other company in the industry that wants to make a serious bid. It should be sold on a non-exclusive basis. All OEMs (large or small) should have a number of reputable companies to deal with and not be obligated to toe the line with a monopolist nor an oligopolist. (Having 2 or 3 companies sell Windows is hardly any better than a single one.) OEMs must be free to pick the company they wish to deal with and be given the opportunity to package hardware and software as they (the OEMs) perceive the market demand will develop.

Splitting the company into three identical companies will not work. They will compete for awhile. But each one will end up creating bigger and bigger bundles of unwanted software. The industry must be changed so that vendors offer real choices to consumers not just huge bundles of software that few people need and which all come from one company.

Finally, putting the operating system in its own company is only moving the monopoly around. That will solve little.

Fix the problem. Monopoly power over the consumer OS must be removed.

All consumers deserve the ability to buy only the products they themselves think they need.

Nov 12, 1999 - Friday

4:30 PM PST - An article that I almost missed.... regarding the Caldera case. (by Dan Gillmor)

I want to thank those who have forwarded links to articles that I may have missed. I do try to link to many articles if the subject matter is relevant to the antitrust trial of Microsoft. Sometimes I just miss them. Other times I do read them and just do not link. Either way I do wish to thank those who have pointed out relevant articles.

1:00 PM PST - Politics as usual?

When the facts are against you sometimes your only choice is to begin offering bribes?

What is very clear about Microsoft's corporate policy in regard to antitrust violations is that it is to completely ignore any conduct engaged in by Microsoft during the process of precluding competitors.

This policy is clear as a bell.

Look at the announcement from Bill Gates on the day the findings of facts relating to his conduct was released: Bill Gates spoke of making the government happy. He spoke of making consumers happy (presumably by forcing more Microsoft products upon them). And, he spoke of making developers for Microsoft platforms happy. But, who did he clearly omit in his comments? He, Bill Gates, flatly ignored all rights of competitors in regard to fair and open markets free of illegal conduct engaged in by a monopolist. Bill Gates refuses to acknowledge the very law his company is charged with violating. He just continues to ignore antitrust law. Maybe he just does not understand it. Or, maybe he hopes it will go away if ignored. Or, maybe he just hopes his money will change the politics and allow his company to continue the forced sale of unwanted products. (I do hope his lawyers are smarter than they appear.)

Look at the announcement from the COO, Mr. Holbert. He spent his time talking about the thousands and thousands of other companies in the computer software industry hoping that enough people are fooled into thinking they actually compete with Microsoft in its monopoly market. His speech was a carefully crafted and highly deceitful presentation. I guess he felt that lying about what Microsoft does would be foolish. Just say something true and hope that convinces enough people to lay off of the Microsoft Monopoly. Well. I am sure a lot of the Microsoft supporters expressed agreement as he spoke all the while they were being deceived. (I guess it might be best to let them sleep?)

And, now there is this great informational campaign released by the PR folks at Microsoft to convince everyone that consumer harm is a major issue in antitrust cases. Antitrust law has very little to do with consumer harm. Antitrust law protects competitors and competition against conduct engaged in by monopolists that preclude them from fair markets. Consumer harm does not need to be proven in antitrust cases. The issue is harm to competitors, not harm to consumers. (Notice how Microsoft NEVER addresses harm to competitors or precluding them from key markets?)

Now, to be fair, antitrust laws are based upon the assumption that precluding competitors from markets will in fact harm consumers as well. This is a valid assumption. And, this assumption is in fact supported by the facts in the Microsoft antitrust case. Witness the testimony from Gordon Eubanks who said bluntly that competition greatly benefited consumers. And, a number of the findings of fact also relate to the harm caused to OEMs and end users when the choice of a browser is removed or one particular brand is forced upon all consumers regardless of their wishes. (Read the findings if someone you know likes being forced to buy and use IE.)

Microsoft Corporation argues that consumers benefit from being forced to buy IE because IE is such a great product, right? Unfortunately, Microsoft never cares about the consumers who either do not log onto the internet and thus can not possibly be benefited in that way much less those consumers who prefer to pick and choose the applications they use (which includes every single Microsoft supporter that exists today). In other words, all consumers are harmed, yet Microsoft thinks that its products are so good that forcing all consumers to buy them is for their own good. Microsoft Corporation is delusional in thinking that IE is some kind of medicine that cures all ills (i.e. snake oil).

The only difference between "snake oil" and Internet Explorer is that consumers were permitted to leave the bottle of snake oil on the wagon. That is simply not true with the product sold under the Microsoft trademark of "Internet Explorer". Even Apple customers have been forced to buy it.

I guess it is time for some big money bribes. We would hate to have the consumers find out the reality of Microsoft's conduct.

5:14 AM PST - Antitrust law is still being misrepresented by Microsoft money

Antitrust is about competition not consumer harm.

Sorry. But, this article is fundamentally incorrect.

Antitrust law protects competitors and competition. It is not a consumer protection law.

It is wrong and incorrect to suggest that consumer harm is the key issue in this case. Proof of consumer harm is not even required. Only proof that competitors have been precluded from markets is required.

It is for this reason that this article above is fundamentally incorrect and for the same reason South Carolina may have been incorrect in dropping out. Actually, in South Carolina's case you have to look to their state's laws to ascertain whether they should have stayed in the suit or not. It may be that according to South Carolina law, no laws were broken by Microsoft.

This article is simply part of Microsoft Corporation's campaign to misrepresent the nature of antitrust laws in order to escape their enforcement.

Consumer harm is relevant only to the extent that harm to consumers is assumed when competitors are precluded from markets via monopoly power. To that extent, harm has been proven. However, a specific finding of harm is not in fact required to sustain a violation of antitrust law.

Nov 11, 1999 - Thursday

10:30 AM PST - Bill Gates a "cold blooded monopolist"? It does appear that way.

"A cold blooded monopolist is Bill Gates."

Bill Gates has announced that he will continue to force the sale of IE upon all consumers he can.

Bill Gates cares not one bit for the right of consumers to pick and choose their own products.

So. Regardless of what else he says, as long as he refuses to acknowledge the basic consumer right to decide which products they buy and which they do not, he is no longer relevant.

Those consumers who are forced to buy IE will continue to do so. Those that have a choice will not. It is a rather simple concept.

Not one Microsoft supporter that I have met is willing to forgo their right to pick and choose their own applications. But, they do insist that they can decide for everyone else.

Bill Gates is the cold blooded monopolist they aspire to become.

Does it really matter what Bill Gates says from this day forward? Most likely not.

10:15 AM PST - The appellate process should take the fast track.

A quick resolution would be best.

Microsoft continues to act in a manner that the current Judge, Judge Jackson apparently will find violates the law. Certainly an injunction would stop that but an injunction may be put aside pending a full appeal.

Would it be appropriate for Microsoft to continue forcing the sale of unwanted products upon consumers for 3 or 4 years while the appellate process progresses? The answer is "no" unless you are the person forcing the sale of products. Then you would say delay, delay. So the monopolist would always vote for a delay. That would permit them to increase their illegal sales and continue to preclude competition from the market.

Bill Gates has announced that he fully intends to continue to force all consumers to purchase IE regardless of their wants, needs, desires or basic consumer rights. Bill Gates has proven himself to be a cold blooded monopolist.

The legal system needs to address this problem.

The legal system is responding albeit slowly. Findings of fact have been released. Conclusions of law will follow. Perhaps additional evidence will be taken as to possible remedies. And, then the appellate process will have to take it course as long as Bill Gates insists upon forcing consumers to buy unwanted products.

A quick resolution will benefit everyone except the monopolist.

Nov 10, 1999 - Wednesday

9:30 AM PST - Remedies? Be sure to fix the problem. (Also read.)

Be sure to fix the problem.

Finally, putting the operating system in its own company is only moving the monopoly around. That will solve little.

Fix the problem.

All consumers deserve the ability to buy only the products they themselves think they need.

8:50 AM PST - Compaq debuts a net-PC, but does it include the expensive Windows 98?

Less without Windows?

Funny that the OS that $499 machine is supposed to come with is not disclosed.

Microsoft's suggested retail price for Windows 98 with IE and Networking is $200.

Seems that a net-PC without IE or networking technology (whichever the consumer just does not need) would cost less even from Microsoft Corporation.

However, avoiding the monopoly product would result in an even lower cost net-PC.

There is no doubt that the overpriced and over packaged Windows bundled is keeping the minimum price of a PC (net variety or not) too high.

Microsoft made a big point in their antitrust trial trying to fool the judge into thinking a typical PC cost $2000. That was pure deceit and fraudulent. It appears however that the judge was not so easily fooled as some consumers appear to be.

Nov 9, 1999 - Tuesday

11:23 AM PST - Looking forward to the appeals?

Microsoft may need more than a simple dislike of the facts.

11:10 AM PST - What the current release of facts means depends upon the final remedy.

I would have to agree on most points made in this article. (by John Dvorak)

However, Microsoft can be restructured to remove not only the monopoly power but also the ill-bent and ill guided management.

Will the court has the guts to actually solve the problem? It did have the cuts to call a duck a duck.

If you want to solve the root of the problem, you take the Windows code base and sell it outright to 6-8 industry players on a non-exclusive basis. Companies like IBM, HP, Symantec, Inprise, Corel, Caldera, Novell, Sun, AOL, Gateway, Dell and Compaq would all be interested in bidding for a non-exclusive copy of the Windows source code. Then do the same with the NT code base.

What would that accomplish? Well. Immediately, all OEMs (even those who lose on their bid) have more than one company they can deal with to satisfy their product needs. Therefore, competition would exist at the wholesale level for the Windows product.

Secondly, that solution would create a very strong need for those companies to form an independent standards body to control further enhancements to the OS. I said the "OS" not all of the silly applications and subsystems that Microsoft bundles with the OS to preclude competitors. It is highly unlikely that the 6 or 8 players will all agree on product bundling.

What is done with the applications is less important but splitting up the rest of Microsoft by putting applications and development tools into separate companies would help disconnect the forced purchase of the Windows technology simply because all applications only run on Windows.

Many of these same companies would and should also offer Linux versions or at least market or support them.

It is time to correct the serious condition the software industry finds itself in simply because a monopolist wants to ignore all laws.

10:30 AM PST - IBM needs to file an antitrust suit against Microsoft for damages done

IBM should wake up and file their own law suit.

IBM has been damaged almost as much as anyone in the industry by the illegal acts of Microsoft Corporation. Early on OS/2 was blocked from the market by Microsoft by its exclusive or preclusive agreements. Microsoft was able to get to be paid for installations of Windows even if the OEM were to sell a system with OS/2. This act was so suppressive that no OEM would dare pre-install OS/2 even if a customer requested it.

And, then you have the direct harm to IBM's PC business buy forcing IBM to pay a higher price than other OEMs of the same market size. This resulted in direct financial harm (the higher price paid) and the indirect harm caused by a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace (IBM PCs cost more).

IBM needs to file its suit.

8:30 AM PST - Will Microsoft fight or fold? or on toward the remedies?

On toward the remedies...

The code base for Windows should be sold non exclusively to 6 or 8 current players in the industry (plus a couple new ones). If Bill Gates or anyone else wants to fund a new company to buy one of those copies let them bid along with everyone else.

This would remove the monopoly but leave Windows as a product. It could become a real standard. These 6 or 8 companies could then use their copy for their own retail sales if they sell PC systems and they could compete for OEM sales as well.

Nov 8, 1999 - Monday

3:00 PM PST - A conduct related remedy will mean absolutely nothing in this case.

Microsoft violated the consent decree.

Why would any judge believe that Microsoft would behave itself in the future?

If consent decrees are ignored so will be injunctions.

Do you really think you can control the conduct of a Corporation that acts like it is unaware of the laws it is charged with violating? Microsoft Corporation is charged with precluding competitors illegally from markets. And, what does Bill Gates have to say? Something about hoping the federal government, consumers and stockholders can be made happy.

Bill Gates: You forgot to address the companies you have sought to harm. You forgot to address issues of fair competition and abiding by the antitrust laws.

It is obvious as hell that any conduct related remedy will be meaningless. Ask Jackson about the consent decree that Microsoft just snubbed their nose at and ignored.

2:30 PM PST - This case is not "Us versus Them". Rather it is "Us versus Us".

Case is NOT us versus them. It is US versus US.

This case is not a case about a private corporation against the federal government at all.

It is a case about one company, a monopolist, precluding all other companies from developing and selling their superior technology. The case is not even about Netscape, although Netscape is involved. Read the findings of fact related to RealNetworks, Intel, IBM, Apple, Intuit and others.

Unless you are a Libertarian there is no reason to discontinue the law suit. Antitrust law protects all possible competitors from being precluded from the marketplace. Do you really think that Microsoft would favor a situation where Microsoft would be precluded from a market? You know they will object to that. (Although that may very well be one of the results of this case.)

No one in their right mind can possibly be in favor of precluding competition.

Bill Gates is not even in favor of that publicly. He ignores competitors and competition in his public comments. He thinks this case is about making the federal government happy. Or, he thinks this case is about making Microsoft ISVs happy. Or, he thinks this is about making Microsoft stockholders happy. Read the latest Microsoft public pronouncements and letters. They ignore the concepts of fair competition and antitrust laws.

This case is about illegal conduct engaged in by Microsoft Corporation. Conduct that violates antitrust laws and the similar laws of some 19 States.

Almost all public announcements now coming out of Microsoft deceitfully hide the very nature of the laws they are charged with violating.

You would think their lawyers forgot which case they were defending.

Having a COO get up and proclaim that thousands of companies write software is a bit of a joke. How deceitful can Microsoft get? The judge just finds that Microsoft has no practical competition and the company announces that thousands of non competitors exist. Yes. They exist. But, they do not compete with Microsoft. In most cases, they are part of the Microsoft monopoly.

12:02 PM PST - The Linux PC just does not exist ... yet.

The Linux PC just does not exist yet.

The judges finding of facts is correct. You can bet if Microsoft could find statistics showing that Linux had 10-15% of the PC market they would have used bold print.

But, that is just not the case yet. Sure, Linux may be quite strong in the server marketplace. But, this case is about consumer operating systems.

Of course, the expansion of Linux onto the PC desktop is going to be greatly accelerated as Microsoft is prevented from blocking other technologies from the marketplace. And, as browsers become more and more cross-platform applications or subsystems, Linux will be able to compete even more.

This case is not about what could be or would be. This case is about what "is". And, right now, Microsoft is a monopoly in the consumer OS market. That is likely to change and the current law suit will play a major role in that transformation.

It is also hoped that consumers wise up just a bit and stop that silly whine about Microsoft not being a monopoly. It is a monopoly and has been so for quite some time. And, it has used that power to preclude competitors and directly harm consumers.

11:19 AM PST - Bill Gates and Microsoft act like they are totally dumbfounded about the law they are violating

Gates can not say "fair competition"?

Dear Bill Gates:

Your company is being sued for violating antitrust laws. Ask your lawyers.

Why do you post a letter to "Customers, Partners and Shareholders"? You are not being sued for a violation of their rights. You are being sued for violations of antitrust law which protects competition and competitors.

You should write a letter explaining how your company will be fair to competitors. Ask your lawyers. That is the main issue in this case.

Are your lawyers really this dumb? Do they think you are being sued for harm to consumers, partners and shareholders? The finding of facts did disclose that you harm consumers. But, your partners (in crime) and shareholders benefit from illegal acts in violation of antitrust law.

Ask your lawyers which law Microsoft Corporation is being charged with violating.

11:00 AM PsT - Grow up Ballmer.

Is Ballmer sick or what?

Kids have nothing to do with this case. Why the fake stories about the poor millionaire's kids?

What about the Netscape kids whose parents lost their job because of illegal Microsoft acts?

This fake appeal for public sympathy is pathetic.

Grow up Microsoft and stop your campaign of deceit and misinformation.

7:10 AM PST - Microsoft should address their illegal conduct and not use the skirts of the rest of the industry

Microsoft still deceitful...

What is really interesting is Microsoft's reaction to the finding of facts clearly indicating what everyone already new. That is that Microsoft has a monopoly, a very strong one, and they use their monopoly power to preclude competitors. It is all explained right there in the findings. It is explained how Microsoft used its muscle to brown nose a whole range of other companies into not doing business with Netscape. It is all explained how forcing consumers to buy Microsoft's brand harms consumers now and in the future. And, it is all explained how Microsoft sabotaged Java to maintain its monopoly power.

What is interesting is the complete lack of understanding by Microsoft spokesman as to the events that took place.

Bill Gates got on the tube with his suggestion that a fair solution for the government and consumers could be found. But, antitrust law is all about protecting competitors and competition. Bill Gates said nothing relative to antitrust law. Nothing whatsoever.

And, the COO, Holbert gave a nice speech about all of the thousands and thousands of companies writing computer software today. Nice speech. But, again totally and unequivocally not relevant to the charges found against Microsoft. Microsoft is not being charged because the industry lacks a lot of software companies. Microsoft Corporation is charged with violations of the antitrust laws because of specific acts engaged in by Microsoft to preclude competitors in its monopoly market, the consumer OS market. His response was a non sequitur. What he said might have been true (strangely enough for Microsoft) but just not relevant to the current events.

Microsoft Corporation is still engaged in its campaign of deceit and misrepresentation.

You would think their lawyers were totally oblivious to the concepts involved in antitrust law. I doubt that is the case. But, it is clear they think a campaign of deceit, misinformation and politics is their only hope.

Address the illegal acts being found in violation of law.

Nov 6, 1999 - Saturday (the day after)

9:00 AM PST - The "surprising" results? versus Plain as Day (By Dan Gillmor)

Surprising results in the Finding of Facts?

I am sure you have read one or more press reports expressing the judge's finding of facts as surprising. Well. In part I would have to agree. However, I am sure my surprise is not the same surprise that others seem to acknowledge.

I am sure the pro-Microsoft press expresses surprise as a way of expressing their displeasure. And, I assume they can even find a so-called antitrust expert to claim "surprise" as well.

But, that is not where the surprise comes from for me.

I am surprised that the judge was able to accurately and completely understand what Microsoft has been up to in regard to both browser technology and Java. It is very clear from the finding of facts that the judge understands barriers to entry and how it creates monopoly power. It is also clear that the judge understands that any and all acts increasing barriers to entry do in fact strengthen that monopoly power. I note with particular interest the number of times "barriers to entry" is included in his findings.

The finding is dead on. The finding is a correct one.

Both the forced sale of IE via bundling and Microsoft's acts in regard to Java were engineered if you will to prevent competing technologies from eroding barriers to entry for the consumer OS market place. The DOJ expert economic witnesses did in fact testify to this affect. They clearly explained how bundling applications with the OS not only precludes competitors today but also increases the barriers to entry for future competitors. They also explained how if Microsoft can just sabotage Java competition to Windows can be further put off.

The judge was very astute and correct in finding these facts. And, facts they are.

These findings will also help Sun in its suit against Microsoft. The findings here support a claim that Microsoft has caused direct and intended harm to the Java trademark. While the DOJ case does not involved charges related to trademark violations, the Sun suit does. And, the Sun lawyers will take notice of these findings. Should the judge in the Sun suit reach similar conclusions of fact, Sun should have support for harm to the Java trademark intentionally caused by Microsoft. You can re-read the Java findings in that regard. These findings do support antitrust violations because of the impact that Microsoft's acts have on preventing competition technologies from having a fair market. The judge points out that in a fair marketplace, Java or other cross platform technologies would have eroded some barriers to entry and Microsoft's monopoly power would have been eroded somewhat. How much the judge could not say. But, it is clear from these facts that Microsoft harmed others to prevent the reduction in their monopoly power. And, that is the basis for antitrust violations.

Bill Gates has yet to learn about antitrust law. Either his lawyers do not understand the law or they are incapable of explaining it. (It is not an easy thing to do.) Either that, or they simply can not control their own client. (But, it is just as likely they are on an ego trip hoping to defend a big monopolist from legal liability.)

I note with particular interest the small speech given by Bill Gates immediately after the findings were announced. He expressed hope that a resolution satisfactory to the government and consumers could be reached. The problem is that Bill Gates still does not understand the issues of this law suit. Antitrust law deals with fairness issues between competitors. The DOJ is prosecuting the case, but it is not the government's interests that are being discussed. And, it is not even the interests of consumers that is being discussed although harm to consumers is considered.

Antitrust law deals with the protection of competitors and competition. Bill Gates apparently does not know that yet. (Even that or he is hoping you are fooled by his deceit.)

Nov 5, 1999 - Friday

4:30 PM PST - Court's "Finding of Facts"

3:55 PM PST - Judge calls Microsoft a monopoly? Really?

Little is more obvious.

8:40 AM PST - Microsoft's illegal gains are reversible

"Irreversible gains"?

Not really.

Antitrust law does give the courts the necessary power to reverse ill gotten gains. It remains to be seen if the court will chose to exercise those powers. However, the court can reverse it.

If the court finds that Microsoft's share did advance from 36% or so to 64% today, then the facts are present to find that Microsoft used its monopoly power in their effort to establish another monopoly. Clearly that is what they have tried to do. If the judge sees it that way, things could in fact change.

Can the court require that consumers stop using IE and fire up Navigator instead? No. The court has no power or jurisdiction over consumers. However, the court could require the unbundling of IE from the OS (as well as other applications and subsystems). It could also require that Navigator be sold with the OS or at least offered as an option. However, it is unlikely that the court is going to do any "product designing" or "product bundling". It could, however, require that separate products be sold separately or if offered in a package, packages with competing technology must be offered at the same price.

In other words, consumers should be able to buy an OS without a browser. And, if they want a browser, have a choice of Navigator or IE or Opera at the same price. Microsoft could be required to distribute it or OEMs could simply be given a free hand. A free hand for OEMs to package both Microsoft and non-Microsoft brand products would be the best long term solution.

Of course, any such provisions could be either permanent or at least remain in affect until the prior distribution of Navigator versus Internet Explorer is reestablished.

The above assumes the court wants to engage in the almost daily regulation of the industry. The court is ill suited to do that. The court itself is better suited to evaluate what structural changes are necessary to correct the problem and then order that restructuring. The court really only has meat cleavers and maybe pinchers. The court just is not a regulatory body that can write and adopt hundreds and thousands of regulations to cover all of the detail changes necessary to control an industry.

Nov 4, 1999 - Thursday

11:30 AM PST - Microsoft does have business plans to force the sale of its technology

Microsoft forces sales.

There is no doubt about that. Microsoft right now forces all consumers of any Microsoft or Apple OS to also buy IE forcing it to be a "standard" and available to everyone regardless of their needs or wants.

Will Microsoft force all consumers to buy their eBook reader? Will it be bundled with the operating system too? Will companies choose the Microsoft brand simply because they know Microsoft the monopolist will force everyone to buy the Microsoft brand of reader? See what they do with the Microsoft brand media player now. See what they do with the Microsoft brand browser.

Bundling is inherently unfair to consumers simply because it prevents their choice.

Will Microsoft adopt the same business plan for eBooks as it has for its media player and internet technologies? Guess.

10:00 AM PST - Is Parish right?

Parish is correct at least to some extent.

The real problem is in accounting for the money paid by Microsoft when stock options are exercised. If the stock is selling for $100 per share and an employee has 10,000 stock options at $50 each, that employee can realize a almost a half of a million in instant earnings. This is where all those Microsoft millionaires come from. But, who pays the half of a million? Microsoft does. And, is the half a million paid by Microsoft counted as an expense against earnings? Nope.

If an employee is going to make that kind of money on options, that employee is more than willing to work for less salary, right? Sure enough. Thus, Microsoft payroll expenses are actually lower than they would be without those options. This also over inflates Microsoft's earnings.

It is a pretty simple scheme. And, yes, a lot of high tech companies count on this process to attract quality talent and give them fair compensation while making their public numbers look good.

The scheme works as long as the stock price continues to rise. It stops working when the price no longer goes up all of the time. If the stock is not guaranteed (or likely) to continue to go up, employees prefer paid a sure salary for their efforts.

This is a serious problem. And, it is not exclusive to Microsoft Corporation.

Nov 1, 1999 - Monday

9:30 AM PDT - Microsoft Corporation really should grow up.

"Change the law, quick!"

That appears to be the new Microsoft Corporation strategy for preventing competitors from selling products in their product categories.

Microsoft is against innovation and product development unless it is theirs. Nothing is more clear than that. Microsoft Corporation flatly ignored antitrust laws in their effort to prevent other companies from offering their innovative products and now Microsoft Corporation wants a "law" excluding them from antitrust violations?

Since when?

Microsoft Corporation and its lawyers really should grow up.

Oct 28, 1999 - Thursday

6:15 AM PDT - OEMs ready to toss out Windows?

"Windows" is highly overpriced.

Microsoft Corporation has maintained the high price for Windows over the years by constantly bundling applications with the OS. That business plan may preclude competitors but results in a very expensive PC.

The consumer OS would most likely be half as expensive if only Microsoft would permit OEMs to sell a home PC without networking technology and/or a business PC without internet technologies.

Microsoft's business plan is simply based upon the bundling and forced sale of all of their technologies. Even their word processor will require everyone to first purchase the Microsoft brand of internet technologies.

Given enough time, yes price competition will emerge.

And, appropriate enforcement of the antitrust laws will help in that regard. Unbundling the network and internet technologies from the OS will permit consumers to buy lower priced versions of Windows. Microsoft Corporation wants desperately to avoid that since that would open up competition for internet and network technologies. But, that competition would greatly benefit consumers.

Benefiting consumers is not what Microsoft Corporation wants to do. All they want to do is force the sale of the Microsoft brand of their products.

Oct 26, 1999 - Tuesday

11:25 AM PDT - There is no doubt that consumers benefit from competition and are harmed by monopolists

No question that consumers benefit from real, active and true competition.

Everyone knows that for a fact.

There is no doubt that consumers benefit from the competition in the processor chip business. Performance increases and prices drop. Precisely the opposite occurs when a monopolist controls and manipulates any market. The consumer OS market is only an example. The processor chip market is an example as well. The disc drive market, the CD-Rom market and even the memory market demonstrates the affect of real competition. Of course, the consumer OS market demonstrates the affect of the lack of competition. Prices as high as ever and unwanted products bundled with the main product just to prevent consumers from not paying for those products too.

The next time some idiot gets up and claims a monopolist is offering benefits to consumers check to see what he is smoking. It can not even be the good stuff. It must be common garden weeds. And if that idiot claims consumers are not harmed by the monopolist ask him which planet he lives on.

Oct 25, 1999 - Monday

3:10 PM PDT - GTE is correct. AT&T is trying to preclude competition using its monopoly power.

GTE is correct. AT&T is trying to use its monopoly power in local cable TV markets to preclude broadband access to the internet.

Home - Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.