December 11, 1998 - Friday - Court not in session
4:30 PM PST - The David J. Farber testimony does strike at a key defense offered by Microsoft.
Microsoft would like to think that it can force all consumers to buy IE whenever they buy a Microsoft operating system. To force this sale, they may have to show that customers gain a benefit from the requirement to buy both products together. Mr. David J. Farber has testified that the same benefits can be achieved by purchasing them separately. Mr. Edward W. Felten has testified that the same or similar benefits can also be gained by bundling the Netscape browser with the OS. This testimony may be very important. It may disprove that consumers gain any benefit at all from being forced to buy both products.
However, it is more complex than just whether one browser can substitute for the other. (Certainly, word processors do this often.)
Microsoft has claimed that the price for Windows has not been adjusted to include payment for IE. Even their financial reports claim that IE is a no-charge product and many Microsoft advocates or defenders argue that is some other version of the browser is available for download then the one in the box that must be purchased is also free. This is a false conclusion. Even the financial reports from Microsoft say that 20% of all OS revenue is allocated to "unearned revenue" which they say includes moneys for IE. Furthermore we have seen reports that Microsoft has been increasing the price for windows because of features added over time. I think IE clearly qualifies as an added feature if not a bundled product.
However the claim that IE is free is obviously an attempt to head off any weighing of the benefit of including IE for some customers versus requiring all customers to purchase it regardless of needs.
I have been asking for weeks "just how much is Microsoft charging for IE". The significance if that question is important. If the court wants to compare the harm caused to all consumers by increasing the price of windows with the addition of IE with the benefit of a few customers who would benefit from IE not being an option but rather a required part of the OS, the amount of financial harm to all consumers becomes significant. In other words, do you require all consumers to pay more so that a few have a better product?
In my Billions and Billions article you have to conclude that the benefit to few customers will never exceed those numbers.
So. The question might be "just how small can the benefit be to still avoid antitrust violations?".
Well. Review the testimony from David J. Farber. He suggests the benefit is nil or negative. And, the testimony from Edward W. Felten is also critical in this case. He suggests that not only could IE be removed (something Bill Gates said was impossible) but the Netscape browser would be substituted instead. Maybe Bill Gates will suggest that solution so as to provide the benefits to all customers?
Remember we are talking about forcing all consumers to buy IE regardless of their needs.
1. And just how much money is Microsoft charging each of these
customers for IE?
2. And why is it necessary to remove the choice from the consumer
for this application?
3:30 PM PST - Direct testimony for Edward W. Felten released.
Mr. Edward W. Felten was requested by the DOJ to offer expert opinions on three questions. 1) Can IE be removed from Windows 95. 2) Can IE be removed from Windows 98. 3) Study whether Netscape's browser can replace IE in Windows 98. The short answer is "yes" to all three. This conclusion should be of no surprise to anyone who has developed software.
I will be making a more complete evaluation of this testimony and lead with it next week.
1:40 PM PST - Does Microsoft always disparage competitors products every chance it gets?
I would like to think that once in awhile they actually hold back. But, I can not think of any such case.
They have already blamed lousy software from Netscape in their antitrust defense. They have already blamed lousy software from Sun in their antitrust defense. They have blocked services from Blue Mountain and called those greeting cards "junk". And, they have stated point blank that if you use a boot manager to install 98 the boot manager will no longer function. That statement is false. But, Microsoft hopes to fool enough consumers to dissuade them from using a boot manager which might enable them to use other operating systems. And, they can called David J. Farber a radical simply because he knows the difference between an operating system and an application. Microsoft knows the difference too as has been discussed in detailed, but they have to try to confuse as many consumers as they can in order to force the sale of IE without having consumers complain.
It is beginning to look like every company that wants to compete against Microsoft must first secure a court order stopping Microsoft from violating the law. (IE. Bristol, Caldera, Sun, Blue Mountain, DOJ).
Who is going to be forced to sue Microsoft next? WebTV customers? Real Networks? AOL?
And do not forget the consent decree that was supposed to solve the browser antitrust problem. Bill Gates said he would ignore it. Microsoft ignores all laws and apparently all judgments if they think they can get away with it. That is becoming very clear to the public as well as the courts.
12:10 AM PST - An advertisement for IE would be considered "spam" by Microsoft?
Microsoft seems to be claiming that words such as "free" label e-mail as spam. Has not Microsoft claimed that IE is a free product? Of course, IE is a free product that you must buy. So. I guess that is different.
11:00 AM PST - More information on WebTV Blocking (censorship) by Microsoft
Microsoft routinely blocks e-mail from their WebTV customers. They do this despite objection by WebTV customers.
Check out the following links and stories. (of course Microsoft calls censorship "spam" blocking )
These stores are articles published by and for WebTV customers.
10:47 AM PST - Need more evidence that the OS and Browser are separate?
At least the industry thinks so. I believe all web servers in use today (including those from Microsoft) track the operating system used by a web surfer and the web browser used by the web surfer. And even Microsoft continues to develop the money it has forced from consumers to develop further versions which to no surprise to anyone how their own version numbers and features.
Even Microsoft does not believe that the OS and the browser are a single program. They may mouth the words in hopes of forcing the sale to consumers, but they do not believe it themselves.
If Microsoft can just convince the judge that their OS and IE is a single item they know they can legally force all consumers to buy both without worry about any competition. Then it too will be a monopoly product.
10:15 AM PST - Yet another false defense offered by Microsoft
Does Microsoft really think that its acts are excused because Sun might have suspected what they might do? This is the same suggestion a murder suspect might offer if the victim was afraid of the pending crime. Seeing the bullet coming does not excuse the illegal act.
Microsoft and their attorneys are really scraping for some kind of defense, any defense. However, so far, not one of them applies to what they have done with Java. (see detailed discussion below)
Microsoft is bound and determine to blame somebody else for their illegal acts.
So far Microsoft has blamed everybody else for their intentional acts. By the way, if any other person or company is responsible for what Microsoft has done, then Microsoft can file a law suit themselves.
9:30 AM PST - The Microsoft antitrust violations increase daily.
The Blue Mountain suit is one more example that will be introduced into the Microsoft antitrust case.
Remember, almost any act can be a violation of antitrust law if serves to further the monopoly power of Microsoft or precludes competition. Blue Mountain is apparently in direct competition with Microsoft in one of more categories and Microsoft is apparently blocking their ability to conduct business.
Welcome to Microsoft's world of suppression.
Web TV users have already been blocked from Java and Real Networks audio.
This is the third instance where Microsoft uses it products to preclude
other companies from doing business on the internet via Web TV.
9:00 AM PST - A closer look at Microsoft's claim to only be writing a better Java.
Microsoft is arguing (by the nature of their questions) that they were only writing a better Java because the version coming from Sun (and the rest of the industry) was just not good enough.
To a software developer, this sounds like a justification for their acts. However, legally it is not. Not even close.
Does a software pirate get a free pass if they use a higher quality duplication process than Microsoft does? Does the pirate earn a legal defense if they improve the documentation that comes with the product? Does the pirate get away with illegal duplication of software if his distribution system is more efficient? The answer is clearly "no". And, Microsoft knows that. So, their suggestion that somehow they have a higher or greater legal right to do something because they can or did it better is just false reasoning.
Could Microsoft develop a better cross platform system than that from Sun? Sure. Why not? Microsoft's claims to be able to write better stuff could legally be directed as such and if they are any good at what they claim, they could be successful and defeat Sun fairly and legally.
However, what did Microsoft do?
They licensed a product and trademark clearly intended to be a cross platform solution or alternative and then proceeded to sabotage the trademark by destroying its meaning and design their version so that it would run only on the windows platform.
They attempted to prevent developers from seeking a cross platform development system by offering a platform dependent one. Normally, that might be okay. However, they breached a licensing agreement in order to carry out that plan. (The preliminary injunction says it is likely that Microsoft breached the license agreement.)
And, as discussed previously, they did this in an effort to protect their monopoly by maintaining developer's dependency upon Windows platforms. Microsoft can do things to keep developers trapped. Trapping developers is not illegal. However, in this case, the act of trapping developers (or trying very hard to keep them from adopting a universal approach to development) provides the motive and explanation for what they were doing.
Major companies develop very specific strategic and tactical development plans. They just do not go about blindly coding applications as some independent developers might. So. For Microsoft to suggest that they were only trying to improve Java by writing a better version is simply not believable. Particularly so since it would (or might) require the breach of a license to carry it out (which it apparently has done).
So, what do you think?
Was the board room discussion about writing higher quality code? Or, was the board room discussion about the prevention of a cross platform concept from being successful in the marketplace? Go ahead, guess. But, remember, Bill Gates said "Java scares the hell of me". And, I do not think Bill Gates was talking about the quality of the Java code from Sun (besides his lawyers say it is lousy anyway).
Antitrust litigation is a lot like a homicide. If you do not see a powerful motive, you have a hard time making sense out of the activity. Microsoft's motive is truly transparent.
Maybe Microsoft's witnesses will shed some light on their thinking. Their strategic thinking. Their tactical thinking. We do not need advertisements about innovation and great code. Those concepts apply to all products from all companies. We need explanations that relate specifically to Java. You know, something that makes sense. Justifications and explanations for decisions that major corporations might make when to act might violate license agreements. That kind of thinking.
Sometimes the obvious is just that, "obvious".
December 10, 1998 - Thursday
2:30 AM PST - Is Microsoft really as dense as they claim to be?
The suggestions that Microsoft seems to make in court imply that no one at Microsoft understood what Java was all about. (This seems to be the argument coming from attorneys anyway.)
Who is supposed to believe that Microsoft's divergent version of Java is the fault of Sun? That is simply not plausible. It makes no sense.
Bill Gates is know for claiming that Java scares the hell of him but now his lawyers are suggesting what? Other than Bill, does anyone at Microsoft know what "write once run anywhere" is supposed to mean? It seems rather obvious that if you plan a product that does not do that you may very well violate the license agreement. Microsoft is real good as suggesting someone else is responsible for their intentional acts. They are just not believable. The testimony from Mr. Gosling does make sense. Microsoft clearly had a knife in hand and offered it to Sun "blade first". Microsoft puts razor blades in the apples it passed out to its developers and blames them on Sun?
Maybe Bill is smarter than he has let on with his video. Bill should get a promotion. Maybe more people would listen to his concerns if he had a little more stature in the company.
Personally, I am beginning to think the attorneys hired by Microsoft do not know the first thing about the practice of law. They claim that overturning a injunction on procedural grounds is a decision on the merits in their favor. It absolutely is not. Not even a law student would be so foolish to suggest that it was. And, now they want to re-litigate fault in the Sun litigation. Any fault as between Sun and Microsoft regarding Java will be determined by the court in San Jose (Sun vs. Microsoft) not the antitrust case. In San Jose, the court has already issued a preliminary injunction deciding that it is likely that Sun will prevail in that action and Microsoft will be found to be in violation of their license agreement. Microsoft is now required to abide by that agreement pending final determination. Microsoft is arguing the wrong case.
Microsoft needs to explain why it was so necessary to write a deviant version of Java. Bill Gates knew, at least at one time. And, Bill was not blaming Sun then at all. If Sun was messing it up, Bill Gates would have been be pleased rather than plotting how Java and the Java trademark could be sabotaged.
I can hardly wait for the testimony from Microsoft witnesses as to why they had to sabotage Java if it was not any good.
2:45 AM PST - Maybe they lack a defense?
Microsoft's defense will not be completely lacking. However it will be interesting to hear in court.
9:48 AM PST - Microsoft in serious trouble?
[I do like to refer to the opinions of others from time to time. (In fact I will publish on this web site any article of value submitted by the author on this subject regardless of view.) And, when I read opinions from others (some I know and some I do not) that seem to buttress my own arguments and opinions, I am more than willing to link to those articles. Richard Gray, a practicing attorney in the San Jose area and also prepares a commentary for the San Jose Mercury News. I often link to their articles and the commentary by Rich Gray. I do not always agree with Mr. Gray's commentary but they are worth reading. I do.]
8:30 AM PST - Farber finished testifying Wednesday and Gosling continues.
"Sabotaging Java".
Microsoft continues to ignore its own conduct in sabotaging Java and forcing all consumers to buy unwanted products (IE and a deviant JVM).
Microsoft is conducting all of its Java work under license from Sun and with the benefit of trademark of Sun which identifies Java products as not requiring a specific OS. Microsoft deliberately sought to sabotage the Java trademark in an effort to keep their developers trapped on Windows platforms and to maintain their monopoly power over consumers. And, what do they say in court? Well. Actually, their witnesses have yet to testify. But, their lawyers seem to think that if they can disparage Java directly somehow the acts of their client are justified. Microsoft just loves to disarrange the products of other companies. Most companies have a stated policy against such acts. Microsoft hopes to defend itself in court by pointing out how bad products are from other companies. The lawyers do this despite knowing it is not relevant. It simply avoids discussion of Microsoft's acts (or perhaps is supposed to justify sabotage?).
In every contract (in California anyway) their is an implied covenant of fair dealing. In part this is what Sun is charging Microsoft with violating in regard to Java. Anytime you license technology from another company then deliberately adopt business plans to sabotage the very technology licensed and the trademark use extended, they clearly would have to be characterized as violating that covenant.
In this case, the question is why Microsoft sought to harm the Java trademark and why it tried so hard to develop a deviant version. Microsoft falsely claims that they were just doing their best. Microsoft did try hard. However, when you are under license you do not adopt business plans with the intention of violating that license. Unless you want to run the risk of being sued for breach of that contract. The preliminary injunctions issued so far in the Sun litigation determine that Microsoft has likely violated that contract. The only defense offered so far does not excuse those violations.
Why did Microsoft violate the Java license?
1. Microsoft's monopoly power would be lessened if any development
system was not tied to Windows.
2. Microsoft's monopoly power would be lessened if a universal
language were to succeed.
3. Microsoft's own developers were attracted to a universal development
concept and they had to do something to stop them.
4. If the monopoly power was lessened prices for the OS would
have to be lowered and be competitive.
5. If the dependence upon Windows was removed other operating
systems might be introduced or practically available to former and future
Microsoft customers.
6. If the monopoly power were reduced Microsoft could no longer
bundled unwanted applications with the OS and still force the sale.
(Without a monopoly, Microsoft would have to treat its OS the same as Word.
It would have to offer it unbundled as well in order to satisfy the need
some customers have for only the basic OS.
The suggestion offered by Microsoft that it was only customizing Java solely for windows so that some developers would use all of the Windows special features is bogus. All developers know that many companies including Microsoft provide development systems that afford the developer full access to all of these features. The reality is that there is no reason what so ever that Java must do that. Certainly, it was not technically required to violate a license agreement. This is what Microsoft is saying. "We had to violate the license agreement in order to give a couple of developers special stuff." Sorry. There is no technical reason at all for violating the license agreement nor for writing a deviant version of Java. Not one.
The reasons Microsoft dealt with Java the way they did are listed above (#1 through #6). Those reasons make sense. Those reasons are logical. Those reasons provide the strategic and tactical justifications for doing what Bill Gates and Microsoft have done. Unfortunately 1-6 above relate to antitrust violations so Microsoft can not mention those reasons. They have to make some up. "Our developers made us do it".
Microsoft may have written their version of Java (making sure it was tied to Windows) just so that they could accomplish #1 through #6 above.
When Bill Gates said that Java "scared the hell out of him", he was not taking about the technical difficulty in re-writing Java so that it fully utilizes special functions available on Windows. He was talking about #1 - #6 above and how he was going to address those issues.
Microsoft's lawyers are hoping that if their client can claim to have hailed a cab and took a ride that somehow that will excuse Bill Gates from leaving the scene of a crime. It does not. They have to address Microsoft's acts in sabotaging Java (and apparently breaching a contract in the process).
Back on browsers.
I received my Jan 5, 1999 copy of PC Magazine yesterday (as have many people). On page 104 the magazine covers what they describe as the Best Internet packages of 1998. I see "Microsoft Outlook Express" and "Netscape Communicator 4.5". Well. Everyone knows that the Netscape product is optional. Individual customers can choose to install it or not. And, yes Virginia, it is absolutely clear that Communicator is an application. But, what about Outlook Express? I swear Microsoft lawyers (of all people) are trying to convince the judge in the Microsoft Antitrust case that IE is part of the OS. Well, I guess Microsoft has paid PC Mag enough to make sure they evaluate and test an application that everyone must buy regardless of merit (why, I have no idea) but not enough money for them to evaluate Outlook as a feature of the OS (which is what Microsoft lawyers are claiming in court). Funny thing is that the article says that Outlook Express is "bundled" with Internet Explorer again suggesting that IE is an application (not one word was mentioned about any operating system) and suggesting that consumers had a choice (which no consumers have).
So. Just why are technical magazines evaluating products over which consumers have no choice but to purchase? That is equivalent to the IRS advertising about how nice their people are and that you should choose to do business with them. (Maybe Microsoft knows it will be split by the court and is making sure the future parts of the company have had ongoing PR and advertisements? That could explain it.)
Maybe it is because PC Magazine knows what everyone else knows. IE is an application and is only bundled with the OS in order to force all consumers to buy it regardless of their needs or wants or rights. PC Mag seems to know this. Microsoft's own dictionary seems to know this. The DOJ seems to know this. Consumers seem to know this. Even Judge Jackson seems to know this.
Why is it that Microsoft and Bill Gates seem confused?
Bill Gates himself gave the answer. Just bundle IE with the OS.
Everyone will be forced to buy IE. (sales always bring in more money as
the price increases to cover the R&D for additional features)
And, Netscape will not have any ability to sell their products nor pay
their employees nor
support Java.
December 9, 1998 - Wednesday
4:48 PM PST - Microsoft reduces choice for all consumers.
The reduction of choice is obvious. What is also true is that Microsoft forces consumers to buy unwanted products and even install duplicate applications should they want to exercise their own choice.
What is absolutely clear in this trial is that Microsoft refuses to honor the very basic right of consumers to pick and choose their own applications. As I have said previously, even Bill Gates refuses to let any one pick his applications for him. But, Microsoft is arrogant enough to not only refuse to allow its own customers to do that but they also force all of them to buy IE (a clearly unwanted product...unwanted by the majority of their own customers).
Again, this is precisely the kind of conduct that the antitrust laws are designed to prevent, monopolists charging excessive prices and forcing consumers to buy unwanted products.
Now, what was the excuse the lawyers for Microsoft came up with today for ignoring the needs and wants of their customers?
3:46 PM PST - Even Bill Gates will not allow someone else to pick his applications.
(No discussion necessary.)
2:44 PM PST - Products are not defined by the selection of files used to hold their parts.
Microsoft continues to argue that IE is not an identifiable product (Microsoft's dictionary notwithstanding) simply because they spread around some code between the OS and IE. Really?
Is Microsoft suggesting that the beta for IE is an operating system or application? Lawyers (more so than anyone) should know the difference between a general case and a specific case. IE may be blended with the OS code for Windows 98, the product almost all consumers must buy. However, IE is not so blended in all of the other versions.
Maybe the lawyers for Microsoft can not identify a browser when they see it, but everyone else clearly can.
It is the product as defined by Microsoft in the marketplace (and in their dictionary) that counts in regard to antitrust violations, not some arbitrary blending of code segments done by the violated specifically for the purpose of trying to avoid antitrust charges.
Gosh, Microsoft has also clearly identified most if not all of the research and development dollars associated specifically with IE. They even published in their financial reports the fact that those values were expensed. And, they went further to claim that 20% of all revenue for their operating systems (including 98) is attributable to un-earned revenue which includes IE. If IE is not treated as a separate application by Microsoft in their financial reports, their argument might at least be consistent.
Maybe the only people at Microsoft who do not know that IE is a separate application call themselves lawyers? It is possible. Lawyers have often been accused of not understanding technical issues.
This false claim by Microsoft is made solely to argue that Microsoft should be exempt from antitrust law violations no matter what they do.
12:53 PM PST - Microsoft again says that IE is an application.
What? The Microsoft dictionary knows the difference between an operating system and an application? The Microsoft web site used to refer to IE as an application as well before the lawyers found out about it. The lawyers knew that was incriminating so that required that language to be changed.
Maybe this public claim that IE is an OS is just more deceit cleverly used by Microsoft to gain additional sales? Is that not consumer fraud as well as a violation of antitrust law?
Speaking of consumer fraud, "Just how much is Microsoft charging consumers for IE and the Java Virtual Machine that apparently violates Microsoft's license?". Amazing how often consumers have to ask Microsoft about the prices they charge for certain products only to have Microsoft claim that they spent all that R&D money for a no-charge product (while they readily admit raising prices as they add features to the monopoly product). Maybe while they are on the stand, they can tell consumers how much they have paid for multiple copies of the Solitaire Game and Quick Basic. Microsoft has historically forced all consumers to buy those products too. I bet almost every single consumer could list a number of applications they would rather have a discount for and do without the silly application.
Or. Perhaps Microsoft should bundle Access. Yes. Everyone should have at least one data base management system, right? That could be "blended" in with the OS (some operating systems actually have done that but they do not have a monopoly ...so they are all but gone now.).
10:45 AM PST - Should Microsoft force ALL CONSUMERS to buy the C++ development environment?
Why not? It can be "Microsoft like integrated" even better than IE. Besides Microsoft already forces the sale of Basic, right? Why not force all consumers to buy the C++ compiler? Be very careful how you answer this question. If you say "No", you better be able to explain to the judge how the C++ compiler differs from IE (aside from the fact that Microsoft has not gotten around to blending the code yet).
10:25 AM PST - The "blender" defense will not work either, Microsoft! You will have to abide by the law.
It is true that except for the antitrust laws, any product can be bundled with a monopoly product and the sale forced upon all consumers precisely the way that Microsoft is attempting to force the sale of IE. Is Microsoft scraping the bottom of the barrel in an effort to force that sale? Yes. They clearly are.
Even the judge seems to understand what Microsoft refuses to admit, that is that the OS is the part that must be running regardless of which application the user chooses. IE absolutely does not meet that test. It never did. It never will. Knowing the difference between and OS and an application does not make a person a "radical". Rather it demonstrates intelligence. Intelligence is something that Microsoft has completely avoided so far in this litigation. Hopefully, some of their witnesses will know something about the industry.
10:05 AM PST - Microsoft equates following the law with the destruction of Microsoft?
Does Microsoft really think that its right to exist justifies violating the law? Perhaps it is about time to begin the discussion of splitting up that company in such a way that its ability to violate the law is removed. (see Horizontal split)
10:00 AM PST - Testimony on Tuesday from David J. Farber reveals Microsoft's false legal defense.
Microsoft thinks that if it can blend the code for two computer programs such that separate files can not be named separating the two again, that such a blend is an automatic exemption from antitrust laws. Huh?
(This is false legal reasoning. See the article from the San Jose Mercury News for some of the dialog.)
As a fabricated defense for antitrust liability, Microsoft has attempted an old programmer's trick. Just mix and match the procedures you write and combine them in files such that the two products can not be easily separated by common file utilities. (of course Microsoft will have to spend the time and money to unravel them themselves when they update IE for Solaris, Hp-UX and Apple...so I guess they could easily do that for Windows too.)
Fortunately for consumers, antitrust law is not so simple minded. Almost any act can provide the basis for antitrust violations. The law simply does not say that if the source code for computer programs can be blended such that they are not subject to separation by common file utilities, that such a product is exempt from antitrust law. The very act of blending could be construed by the court as an act in violation of the law. In fact, Bill Gates himself suggested that the consent decree would have no affect upon Microsoft for this very reason. (I.E. they were just going to blend the code).
Rather how should the court decide (for antitrust purposes) whether the OS and IE are one or two programs?
Well, you clearly do not look at the source code nor the files in which the routines are kept. I can personally "jimmy" source code files so that Windows 98, the Flight Simulator and MS-SQL are designed as a single application. Any programmer can do so as well. For Microsoft to suggest that if a witness can not name specific files, then two otherwise completely distinct programs are in fact only one is a bit ridiculous. It makes no sense from the technology standpoint, the economic standpoint nor the legal stand point. It is nothing more than a poorly thought out excuse for the deliberate violation of federal law.
How do you do it? How do you decide if IE is a separate application for antitrust purposes?
Well. Microsoft can actually help here. What has Microsoft done? For one, they distribute IE totally separate from any OS. Hint: That means it is an application and not an OS. (See basic definitions in the Farber Testimony )
Is IE an OS when running under Solaris? No.
Is IE an OS when running under HP-UX? No.
Is IE an OS when running under NT 5? No.
Is IE an OS when running under Windows 3.1? No.
Is IE an OS when running under 95? No.
Is IE an OS when running under iMac? No.
Is IE an OS when running under Apple?
Is any other browser an OS when running under any system? No. So Microsoft and the rest of the industry agree that a browser is an application. (Microsoft is inconsistent here so they can claim a false legal defense, but they clearly act as if IE is an application in precisely the same way that every other company in the industry acts with their applications. They distribute it widely fully independent of operating systems.
IE is not an OS anywhere. But, Microsoft is a wasted effort to use the court system to force the sale of IE upon all consumers has blended the code for IE with 98 in such a way to fabricate a false legal argument. It is a pure fabrication however. It is conducted without any technical reason except for an attempt to skirt the antitrust laws. (Remember, they had to skirt around that consent decree they agreed to which said specifically that Microsoft would not force the sale of IE by tying it to the OS sale.)
So. Microsoft itself distributes IE as an application everywhere except where it is blended with the monopoly product, Windows 98. (This trick was incomplete with NT and 95.) However, the high paid antitrust lawyers must have told Bill Gates that their only defense to their blatant attempt to wipe out Netscape was to blend the code and hope to fool the courts and the consumers. But, they did not integrate IE. IE remains an independent application everywhere. (it is only bundled with 98 just as Bill Gates promised in 1994 for the specific intent of precluding competitors from marketing Windows software by eliminating any realistic demand for any competitor's browser)
What do the consumers think? Well. Consumers all think IE is an application. Consumers all think that competing browsers are applications. Remember, applications are those programs that serve the user and all users know that.. Operating systems do not serve the user. It is a very basic distinction and all consumers know the difference. All consumers know that word processors (an obvious application just like IE) allow them to read, draft and edit documents. And, all consumers know that the OS never does anything for them. (Even the backup program and file utilities are applications.) Of course Microsoft really wants to confuse everyone in this distinction so that they can force the sale of key applications by bundling it with the OS (just like Bill Gates threatened).
Mr. Farber is correct. For Microsoft to suggest that the Solitaire Game is part of the OS just because it comes in the box is absurd. For Microsoft to suggest that IE is part of the OS just because it comes in the box is likewise absurd. (For legal reasons only, they have blended the source code.)
However, in the marketplace Microsoft has always treated IE as an application (save for the one place where by bundling it with a monopoly product, it can force the sale). How transparent Microsoft is. And, often legal strategies are likewise transparent.
However, it is technically impossible to integrate IE functions with the OS. Why? Because if IE did anything in conjunction with 98 that it can not do on all of the other platforms, then IE would not be consistent nor a standard application and it could not be a common browser at all. In other words IE as a browser can do non browser functions for 98, but it can not provide browser functions on 98 that it does not also provide on Solaris. If IE is not integrated with Solaris, it can not be integrated with any other operating system either. Non browser functions could be integrated. But, not browser functions.
Microsoft does hope that it can avoid any and all requirements to abide by antitrust law by simply blending source code.
Hint: Money is next. Word is next. Anti virus is next (now in the option pack). Access is next. Networking is next (oops, already did that to wipe out Lantastic). File compression is next (oops, already did that to wipe out Stac). Excell is next. Media drivers (audio/visual) are next (oops, already did that to wipe out Real Networks). Web-TV is next. Cell phones are next. Cable TV is next. MS-SQL is next. SII is next (oops, already did that to wipe out Netscape). Front Page is next. Flight Simulator is next. Every product that could ever be conceived or ever has been written could be exempted from any and all antitrust laws according to Microsoft's fabricated logic. All they need is a monopoly product to force the sale of the key product they wish to force all consumers to buy. And, right now they have one of those and are using Windows to force the sale of IE upon all consumers. Heck. Why not integrate the OS with a cell phone and force all consumers to buy the Microsoft cell phone (gosh, they do have a phone already)? That would be true integration and very innovative. Why not do that? If all Microsoft has to do is blend some code, consider it done! Consumers will just have to buy it.
This is precisely the kind of activity the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
December 8, 1998 - Tuesday
5:08 PM PST - Is buying an OS and browser from the same company a good idea?
This seems to be the excuse Microsoft is using for their actions in bundling the OS and IE (despite Bill Gates threat to the industry notwithstanding). But, it is a good idea? Sure, I suppose. So is integrating a word processor with a spread sheet and a data base. But, that does not justify forcing all consumers to buy that combination without choice. Microsoft still markets the packages in the Office suite as separate applications and for very good reasons. "Customers want the choice." In the case of IE, customers also want the choice. Only Microsoft is so arrogant to think that their own corporate needs override the right of consumers to pick their own applications.
Nothing justifies the denial of choice to the consumer.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy their browser from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy their Java Virtual Machine
from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy their word processor from
Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy their video player from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy their audio player from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy any application from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy a data base system from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy a single game from Microsoft.
Consumers do not want to be forced to buy any application from Microsoft.
Consumers do not even want to be forced to buy Windows from Microsoft.
Only Microsoft is so arrogant and disrespectful of the rights of consumers to assume otherwise.
Even "perfect" software, if it were to exist, does not justify the acts of Microsoft in ignoring the very basic right of consumers to pick and choose their own applications based upon their needs as they alone perceive it.
Microsoft has no such right at all. None. Not even close.
Only a ruthless and inconsiderate monopolist forces the sale of unwanted products upon consumers. Microsoft is an obvious example of one.
4:30 PM PST - Does Microsoft know what an "operating system" is?
By the nature of questions their attorney had for David J. Farber, I would guess that Microsoft does not. Apparently Microsoft thinks that an OS is defined by the contents of a bundled product.
Consumers do not think so. Experts in the industry do not think so. Does Microsoft really think that by bundling applications with their OS, they redefine a simple concept in the industry? I doubt it.
1:40 PM PST - David J. Farber is correct, not an extremist at all.
Of course Microsoft would not like anyone to testify against Microsoft. But, again, rather than address the acts of Microsoft, all they can do is attempt to discredit other witnesses.
Mr. David J. Farber is correct. The OS never directly serves the user. Only applications do that.
In fact the only reason Microsoft argues that some applications should be bundled with the OS is so they can force their sale along with their monopoly product. That is totally transparent to everyone. (Even Bill Gates understands that.)
And, unlike the game of solitaire (which Microsoft also forces everyone to purchase), IE costs hundreds of millions to develop and will continue to require enormous R&D dollars. So if Microsoft can force all consumers to buy IE, their recovery of R&D is guaranteed. Even enormous profits are guaranteed.
And, to think that Microsoft's lawyers waste their time arguing over the definition of an OS versus an application. Well. They hope that if they can define an OS by what ever Microsoft wants to bundle in the box, they can force the sale of those applications too. And, they will do precisely that. They will do that with total disrespect for the basic needs and rights of consumers. Already they have stooped as far as using deceit by suggesting consumers are not paying for IE. All consumers are being forced to buy IE. The only question is "how much does each of them actually pay to Microsoft for IE when they buy the Windows products?"
Yes. You could ask the same question for the solitaire game. But, that game did not cost hundreds of millions to develop. And, it does not have an active ongoing development program anywhere near that for IE. Microsoft continues to spend millions on IE and they fully intend to force all consumers to buy IE again and again and again. No consumer will be given the choice not to buy IE.
And, Microsoft is going to argue that they can do so because IE is part of the OS? Is Microsoft looking for some internal rationalization for harming consumers in this way?
I guess Microsoft would define an OS as including any products Microsoft wants to force consumers to buy. That does seem to be their suggestion. That is a definition that only a monopolist could conceive of. It clearly is not a technical one.
1:00 AM PST - Key points to the testimony of David J. Farber.
Definition of what an application is: (I wonder if Bill Gates is reading this?)
""Paragraph
11. Terminology
(D) An Application is a collection of software
functions used to perform specific user oriented tasks."
The entire computer industry has used this distinction to separate operating systems from applications. Only applications serve the user. Operating system never serve the user. This is extremely elementary but leave it to Microsoft to try to ignore reality in their effort to force sales.
Bill Gates apparently is confused about the difference between customers having a need for a specific selection of applications based upon their actual needs and the lack of any right or need for manufacturers to pre-determine that selection for all consumers based upon the desired to earn excessive monopolistic profits. Microsoft completely ignores all consumer's rights including product selection.
"Paragraph 17. Applications may be large, often involving a very large number of routines. Examples of applications are Microsoft Word, Notepad and Speech Recorder -- as well as Internet Explorer."
Even Microsoft admits this by writing IE for Solaris, Hp-UX and Apple products. So, Microsoft itself defines IE as an application by distributing that specific application in the market such that it will provide identical functionality to non-Microsoft platforms as it does with Microsoft platforms. This fact alone proves with absolute certainty that IE is only an application. Microsoft can bundle IE with the OS, but that does not change its characterization.
Microsoft only hopes to force the sale of unwanted applications by making false technical claims. This is yet another deceitful act by Microsoft intended to deceive and trick consumers into buying Microsoft products. "Consumer fraud" raises its ugly head again. Microsoft is making a false technical claim with the intent of defrauding consumers.
Microsoft falsely claims that their OS and IE can not be separated? (see #25)
It appears that we will have to wait for direct testimony from Professor Felten for more details on this. However, the suggestion that any OS and a browser can not be separated is false on it face as a technically false claim. Again, proof of this is Microsoft's own act in delivering IE completely free of any OS (I.E. Solaris, Hp-UX and the Mac).
Does Microsoft really think that a single consumer will believe that they are incapable of separating IE from the consumer OS when it is a simple task with the other platforms?
This request by Microsoft for a free hand to bundle whatever it wants and force all consumers to buy the bundle is truly disrespectful of the basic rights of consumers. This is Microsoft's so-called "ace in the hole" on appeal. You watch. Microsoft will argue that it has the legal right to force consumers to buy unwanted products based upon a false claim of efficiency.
Microsoft no longer respects the rights of a single customer when they make this legal argument. Not one. This attitude by Microsoft goes far beyond arrogance. It demonstrates that Microsoft refuses to accept any basic right of its customers.
If Microsoft forces the sale of IE, Microsoft will force the sale of its Office Suite upon everyone as well. The identical legal arguments would apply.
Mr. David J. Farber's testimony clearly points out that any benefits can be realized by all consumers without the bundling of any application. Technically, this is the only correct conclusion. If the same benefits can be realized by separate applications, then no efficiency at all exists in forcing the sale of both products. That act only harms most consumers and benefits none.
"27. In my view, any analysis of the propriety of such actions by
Microsoft should take at least the three technical factors discussed above
into account:
(a) for software, "efficiencies" achieved through
combination of different functions into one so-called "integrated" software
program can also be achieved without that combination by a software developer
by simply separating that program into two or more pieces, distributed
separately and, if so desired, integrated for use by an OEM or retail end
user;
(b) combining applications with an operating
system into a single product available only with all functions combined
imposes technical inefficiencies for OEMs, other software developers and
retail end users, including redundancy, performance degradation of unused
software and increased risks of "bugs"; and
(c) any function provided by an operating system (as
distinct from higher level files) that does not satisfy the criteria of
simplicity, general applicability and accessibility reduces the efficiency
of the operating system environment and applications that use it."
Is this just an opinion from David J. Farber? No. I, for one, agree completely. And, Mr. Farber does not have the option to earn billions of dollars by presenting false and misleading testimony as Microsoft and all its employees including Bill Gates himself clearly do. Any software developer without a financial interest in Microsoft ability to force all consumers to buy IE will agree with the above opinion.
Microsoft may disagree but only because they rather force the sale of products upon consumers. Microsoft is simply not interested in the least with providing a choice to consumers nor extending the basic right to consumers not to buy unwanted products. Microsoft's only interest is to force the sale of products upon consumers and deny all consumers their right to choose. Microsoft has even gone to the extent of paying millions per month in legal fees in their effort to ignore basic rights of consumers and force the sale of those products.
Par. 28. None of the above denies the possible convenience or preference of some users for "one stop shopping" for bundled products such as the current version of Windows 98 sold as one product by Microsoft. Those OEMs and retail end users who may find this convenience outweighs any technical inefficiencies described here can certainly still choose to buy Windows 98 in the form it now exists. But only the availability of an unbundled version of Windows 98 will cure the difficulties which arise for many OEMs, application developers and retail end users who may find too burdensome the problems arising from their inability to substitute different functions and applications (such as the Web browser) for use with only parts of what is now sold as Windows 98. The OEMs, developers and retail end users who do not want all the software that Microsoft sells as Windows 98 (including, for example, what Microsoft labels Internet Explorer) suffer the inefficiencies described above. Given the ease with which a properly structured browser application can be unbundled from Windows 98, I know of no technical reason why any OEMs, software developers or retail end users must suffer these negative consequences.
This is the crux of the problem. Microsoft wants all consumers to buy both the OS and IE without option on their part. Do some consumers prefer buying both? Sure they do. Do some prefer buying one and not the other? Sure they do. Microsoft only is interested in insisting upon selling the bundle for a very simple reason. Selling both increases revenue (perhaps as much as tripling it). And, forcing the sale of IE puts them into yet another monopoly position on the internet notwithstanding the merger of AOL and Netscape. If all consumers are forced to buy IE, it will matter little that other browsers still exist. Microsoft knows this for a fact regardless of the claims of stupidity by Bill Gates. For Microsoft, efficiencies do not not count at all. Basic rights of consumers do not count either. The only thing that counts is the forced sale of IE. Microsoft gets paid for every copy of IE and gains another monopoly too. They are willing to risk the break up of the company itself to force the consumer into that position. That strategy is very clear.
This testimony from David J. Farber is key. It explains the reality of the computer software industry. And, it explains how foolish Microsoft's technical and legal defenses are. Microsoft is clearly wrong both technically and legally. They are only interested in forcing the sale of products.
Every company in the world wishes they had monopoly power. Microsoft
has it and uses that power to earn excessive profits at the expense of
its own customers. Microsoft's defense from both the technical and
legal standpoints is bogus and disingenuous. Their respect for their
own customers has been completely lost.
11:38 AM PST - Direct testimony of David J. Farber released.
The testimony from David J. Farber points out a major fallacy of Microsoft's legal defense.
Microsoft is clearly arguing that they should be the only company permitted to offer a browser to the market and they should be allow to bundle their version and force all consumers to buy it. Their suggestion that a browser must be included with the OS makes no more sense than requiring the OS to include a word processor from Microsoft.
Microsoft's rationalization is bogus. It does not make good technical sense nor legal sense. In fact it is highly deceitful for Bill Gates to suggest such logic.
Applications have always been separate from the OS for very good technical reasons. David J. Farber's testimony reflects that.
And what is very clear is that if Microsoft can simply bundle IE with the OS, then they can bundled any applications they choose and force all consumers to buy the bundle. Including IE now triples the cost of the OS for all consumers. This harms all consumers financially today. And, it reduces choice.
Microsoft's suggestion that IE is free is only their version of "deceit" and "consumer fraud". Microsoft has clearly admitted that it increases the price of windows as features are added. They have been doing this since the beginning of their company. They are now doing it with IE. Consumers are forced to pay money. And, choice is removed.
Again, someone other than a Microsoft employee is required to explain what Microsoft is up to.
Bundling always does two things:
1. Increases the minimum price of the product to cover the bundled
products.
2. Decreases choice for the consumer.
Neither of these effects benefit consumers. They both harm consumers. And, they harm all consumers (save for the exceptional few would actually want to buy both from Microsoft).
December 7, 1998 - Monday
4:00 PM PST - Has Bill Gates lost his marbles?
Bill Gates and his company Microsoft literally force all consumers to buy IE and a deviant copy of Java and Bill Gates claims that customer are choosing Microsoft products and that is the way competition is supposed to work?
Bill Gates needs to wake up. Consumers are supposed to be given a choice whether they want to buy a Microsoft product or a competitors product NOT FORCED TO BUY IE AND A DEVIANT VERSION OF JAVA.
Is Bill Gates so confused to think that 100% of the Microsoft customers actually want to buy IE? They do not.
Do monopolists always think that they know the needs of 100% of their customers better than the customers themselves? Does Bill Gates have some survey returned by all Microsoft customers that indicates they all wanted IE and the deviant JVM? Of course not. This public speech is what it appears, a big advertisement. An advertisement which completely disregards the rights of all of Microsoft's customers. Even those few customers who actually want to buy IE are denied the their right to choose it. They are all forced to buy it.
The suggestion by Bill Gates that browser technology should be free is bogus. Perhaps operating systems should be free? Does Bill Gates truly think that only those products offered by competitors should be free but Microsoft products need to have a price on them?
Bill Gates has lost all sense of reality. Microsoft has begun to loose it right to exist. Microsoft ignores consumer's basic rights to pick and choose their own products for purchase. It willingly violates any law as necessary if it can preclude competition by doing so. And, as has been testified to by witnesses in court, it over charges for products.
Come clean Bill. Tell the consumers the truth for a change. Tell consumers how much Microsoft is charging for IE and the JVM.
It is beginning to look more and more like splitting Microsoft up both horizontally and vertically is necessary in order to protect the consumer from the abusive marketing tactics and deceit coming from that company. Microsoft spends hundreds of millions in developing products and then lies about the price being charged to consumers who are literally forced to buy it. Then Bill Gates has the guts to get up before a microsoft and claim customers want to be forced to buy those products from Microsoft and if any competitor wishes to sell any product then that product should rightly be free.
Sorry. Bill Gates, we live in a different country. In the United States, companies have to abide by the laws.
2:50 PM PST - Why Microsoft does not just admit what they did?
Why doesn't Microsoft just admit what they did (bundle IE and their deviant JVM in with Windows and keep the high monopoly like price for the product)?
The obvious answer was hidden in the statements coming from Bill Gates. The answer is that Microsoft knows that if they are honest with consumers and give them a chance to not purchase IE and their deviant JVM or tell consumers how much each of them are being asked to pay for this new technology, consumers will object. If Microsoft were not deceitful consumers would either not buy the bundled product (I.E. many of them would take a lessor priced version without IE and the JVM) or they would complain to the DOJ.
By using deceit and refusing to tell consumers how much they are paying for IE, Microsoft can claim that consumers are not objecting to their illegal acts. Microsoft can claim that only competitors are objecting. This is why the true price that Microsoft is charging consumers for IE and the JVM is so important. For one, it measures the direct financial harm to consumers now. And, two, it illustrates why it is so important to avoid discussion prices and consumer choice.
Consumers are not choosing to buy 98, IE and the deviant JVM. They are being forced. But, as long as Microsoft can lie about the true price consumers are paying, Microsoft thinks that consumers will not complain. The logic is very simply. "Who would complain about a so-called "free product?"
Microsoft hopes consumers remain in the dark on this issue. Once consumers realized that 98 would only cost a small fraction of what they are paying now, consumers would revolt for sure. This is the strategy adopted by Bill Gates and Microsoft. Bundle IE and the deviant JVM, then just lie about the cost to consumers in the hope they shut up and get out their charge cards.
And, as it was made very clear by Bill Gates himself today, Microsoft's PR machine will just claim that consumers are not complaining (after all they have been lied to) and the DOJ is only responding to the desires of competing companies.
Well. Do not worry. If and when Microsoft gets around to appealing an adverse decision, their lawyers will argue that even if Microsoft is forcing consumers to buy unwanted products, Microsoft has the legal right to force that sale. We will hear the legal arguments then on just why consumers must purchase both IE and the deviant Java system regardless of the price set by Microsoft. Just wait. Listen to what the lawyers from Microsoft argue. They will argue that Microsoft has the legal right to force consumers to buy IE regardless of the consumers needs, wants and rights to pick and choose their own products.
For now, it is just a game of deceit. Tell consumers anything
to avoid responding to their true needs, wants and rights. Lie if
you have to. But, make certain you force the sale.
2:11 PM PST - Microsoft uses deceit, false testimony and lawyers to assist it in forcing unwanted products and high prices upon consumers, but Bill Gates still refuses to address his own illegal acts.
This case is not about competitors asking that antitrust laws be enforced. Of course anyone can so ask if they desire. But, asking for laws to be enforced means nothing is violations have not taken place. So far, however, Microsoft has sought to avoid addressing it own acts.
This case is about a dominate company having clear monopoly power forcing products upon consumers at high prices and then lying about it. "Just tell the consumers that IE is free so that they do not object to the purchase." "Just tell the consumers that we wrote a deviant version of Java because they ask for it."
If Bill Gates wants to regain some creditability, he can begin by disclosing just how much Microsoft is charging all consumers (Intel and Apple) for IE and its deviant Java Virtual Machine (JVM). They can stop making these false claims that the unwanted products are free. They are not. Microsoft has invested hundreds of millions in R&D for IE and Java and is forcing all consumers to buy that technology whether they want it, need it or not. Microsoft is even considering greatly expanding their R&D expenditures (I.E. develop a so-called clean room version of Java) and then force all consumers to buy that version as well.
Microsoft's lawyers better start to address "the acts of Microsoft" and stop blaming their legal troubles upon those who prefer the laws be enforced. It is not the fault of a neighbor who calls the cops when a burglar is detected breaking in next door. It is the responsibility and legal liability of the burglar and no one else. Who called the cops is just not relevant.
Again, Microsoft attempts to defend itself by pointing fingers at someone else. Sorry, no defense there. Microsoft will have to address what it did. Microsoft will have to address how much it is charging consumers for these unwanted products.
Of course, as long as Microsoft falsely claims consumers are not being
overcharged for IE and Java, Microsoft thinks that consumers will just
get out their credit cards and pay Microsoft. Consumer fraud is
a very effective marketing tool.
1:05 PM PST - "Gates defends his testimony"? (stupidity)
I thought this was going to be a slow news day with the court not in session. Guess not.
Bill Gates simply can not defend his testimony (acting stupid) by suggesting he gave honest and complete answers. Bill Gates does not need to testify against Microsoft. But, I can not think of a single person who considers what he is doing as being anything but evasive and incomplete. Besides, was it not Bill Gates that threatened the entire industry with bundling IE with the OS should any company think twice about trying to offer a browser for the Windows market? Gosh, Bill Gates understand his monopoly power very well that day.
Major companies think in terms of strategic and tactical reasons for doing things in the marketplace. So far, Microsoft has refused to discuss any of their real reasons for their specific acts directed at precluding competition. Do they really think that the industry is going to buy their claim that they are just a bunch of geeks doing code? Some consumers might buy that line, but no one in the industry does. Absolutely not from Bill Gates.
The truth of the matter is that the economist, Frederick R. Warren-Boulton explained from the economic perspective what Microsoft is doing in charging high prices and forcing the sale of IE. The court nor the public needs Bill Gates nor any Microsoft employee to explain it. It is quite obvious.
12:28 PM PST - Should people be permitted to go around town shooting others with a pistol if they disagree with capital punishment?
Is this not what Microsoft is saying by their defense? Are they not ignoring the law and going around destroying other technologies (Netscape browser and Java) simply because they think they know better and should be the only company allowed to do business?
What would be the purpose behind a "clean room version" of Java? What is the purpose behind a deviant version of Java? The Windows platforms already have numerous development systems available using C, C+, C++, Delphi, Pascal, Visual Basic, COBOL and even Fortran. It even has 100% Java systems available from Inprise, IBM and Symantec. So, why a deviant one? What are the strategic or tactical reasons for that, Microsoft?
If the only objective is to do a better job, why not a better "cross platform" system? Or, was IE (and the deviant JVM) supposed to do that? Force IE upon all your own customers (Intel and Apple) and distribute it for free to "non customers" (Solaris, Hp-UX, etc.)?
11:50 AM PST - South Carolina Drops Out of the Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
The individual states who have joined the Microsoft antitrust action have done so because of possible violations of their State's Laws. Certainly the AG from South Carolina is the best judge of any decision to drop its case (even if only politically motivated).
However, Microsoft have never been charged with having a monopoly in the internet as the new report regarding South Carolina seems to imply. Nor are antitrust charges brought upon anyone in anticipation of a monopoly being formed.
Rather, Microsoft is charged with having monopoly power in the consumer OS market and using that power in an attempt to both strengthen that power or gain similar power in another market. These acts are what are prohibited by the Federal Antitrust Laws. As to the laws for the State of South Carolina that might have been broken, I do not have any comment. I am not a practicing attorney for that State and am not familiar with South Carolina Laws.
In California the State Attorney General has charged Microsoft will violations of the "Fair Practices Act". This act addresses the issue of a company giving away products or selling them at predatory prices for the specific purpose of precluding competition. Microsoft apparently still claims that IE is a free product. If Microsoft sticks to that claim, their acts violate the "Fair Practices Act" almost on its face. Many of the States do have similar laws. However, I can not address the specific laws of South Carolina.
What is important in the Microsoft Antitrust case is not how successful Microsoft is in precluding competition or for that matter how successful they might be in the future. It is the act by Microsoft in an attempt to harm competitors, an attempt to overcharge (and thus harm consumers), an attempt to limit choice for consumers in the future and an attempt to force the sale of unwanted products that creates the violation. Being less than 100% successful is not a defense at all. (Competing against a product (Java) that might be having a difficult time in the market is not a defense either despite what Microsoft claims.) As to how this action relates to Java, it is the attempt to fragment the market and destroy the concept of a universal system through the use of monopoly power that violates the law. Again, success of the illegal act is not the test. Microsoft adopting business plans to sabotage competing technology and their on-going attempt to actually sabotage it, provides the violation. For example, if Microsoft chooses to write a clean room version of Java, that may allow them to skirt around copyright and license restrictions but in no way provides a defense for antitrust violations. The antitrust laws are designed to prevent holders of monopoly power from using that power to either further increase their power, suppress competing technologies or attempt to gain yet another monopoly in some other market. This Microsoft is clearly trying to do.
Writing a better cross platform system would be legal for Microsoft.
Developing a better browser and selling it at a fair price would also
be legal for Microsoft.
But, writing an incompatible version of Java and forcing the sale of both Java and IE upon virtually 100% of all consumers is not.
Microsoft's lawyers know that Microsoft has violated the antitrust laws. But, it is their job to try to avoid the application of those laws to what Microsoft is doing. It is their job to assist in forcing all consumers to buy IE and the deviant version of Java at what ever price Microsoft picks.
This is why their public statements do not address the acts conducted by Microsoft and only focus upon non relevant acts of others in the industry and general claims of "innovation", "customer benefits", "poor competing products", "defective cross platform ideas" and "high quality Microsoft products". And, of course, attacking the credibility of any witness who seems to understand what is going on from either a technical or economic perspective. And, even have some pretty smart people act dump and forgetful.
Maybe Microsoft should just come out and claim that computer software
companies should be exempt from antitrust laws, grant Microsoft taxing
authority and maybe pick someone as a technical czar or dictator.
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Seven
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Six
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Five
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Four
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Three
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Two
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week One