November 13, 1998 - Friday - Court not in session
Another week goes by with little of any value coming from Microsoft.
I guess they have little to say in court. Just attack the credibility of witnesses. Suggest that anyone who has been harmed directly by Microsoft's illegal acts are only whiners.
And, the speeches from Bill Gates are equally worthless.
Suggesting products are innovative (even if true) does not excuse antitrust violations. Not conducting abusive negotiations and threats might be a defense. But, claiming that we have this great product never does. The quality of the product is not even relevant. Even top quality products must be marketed according to the fair competition and antitrust laws. You know. Just like all other companies.
Microsoft better get off their strategy of disparaging the products of others and suggesting witnesses are not credible and begin to address the very nature of their acts. It is their acts that are getting them into trouble. And not what other companies are doing. The DOJ has not charged a single violation based upon what some other company has done or not done. All of the charges are based upon the acts conducted by Microsoft Corporation.
While Microsoft continues each day to force all consumers to buy IE, they spend their time in court suggesting that other people are not credible.
Hey. Go the store. If you can figure out how to buy a personal computer (of any brand) without buying IE, let me know. Just make certain that all consumers have that choice as a practical alternative.
Microsoft is addressing all issues except the only one that counts. Microsoft is forcing all consumers to buy unwanted, unneeded or un-selected products and their are using deceit and misinformation to make certain the consumer is unaware of being harmed financially.
Microsoft is forcing the sale of IE by bad mouthing competitors and acting dumb about the true dynamics of the computer software industry and the force they can easily apply and do apply to 100% of all personal computer consumers.
Coming up you will hear from economists that will explain what Microsoft claims not to know. And, then you will likely here from economists that claim to be even less knowledgeable about the industry than Microsoft itself.
November 12, 1998 - Thursday
Mr. McGready returns to the stand. And, what is Microsoft's approach? All they can do is discredit the witness by suggesting he has a ax to grind. It might be that he does. If his favorite project was axed as a direct result of what Microsoft did in threatening Intel, he might be justified in feeling that way.
Microsoft is just looking more and more like the beach bully who kicks sand onto towels and then just rationalizes his unacceptable behavior by claiming everyone is just a wimp. Being a wimp, if it were true does not excuse kicking sand onto the towels of the beach bathers. Likewise, the acts of Microsoft are never excused when those directly harmed by those illegal acts complain or even testify against Microsoft. That should be expected and in fact encouraged. The legal system should encourage testimony from those harmed by illegal acts.
Does Microsoft lack any real defense such that all they can do is to discredit others and disparage the products of other companies? (No. Before this is over, they will claim a legal right to force all consumers to buy IE at whatever price they choose.) Do attorneys really try to discredit a rape victim in an effort to get their client off the hook? Unfortunately yes, they do sometimes. And, when you know your client violated the law and you have no real defense, that may provide your client with the only hope of avoiding liability. This is the reality of the legal system. It is not necessarily good or bad. But, it is real. And, in this case, it is also obvious. Microsoft has been caught with its hands in the cookie jar. And, it seems the best defense it can come up with is that its brother is jealous.
If there is one witness that has proven to be unreliable in this case and totally lacking creditability, it is Bill Gates. This must be the reason Microsoft prefers not to call him as a witness. He has nothing to say that will help Microsoft. Instead of explaining his companies acts in court, he is off giving speeches about some absolute right to violate antitrust laws if the "innovate" word can somehow be worked into the sentence. Instead of permitting consumers to pick and choose their own applications, he is off giving speeches about some absolute right to force the sale of IE simply because it might have some value. In other words, why play fair when it is so easy to cheat and you can just hire some lawyers to disparage competitors products and anyone who complains about your illegal acts. He has a point. It is worth billions (as are all monopoly products and practices). And, he will continue to force consumers to buy unwanted products and he will continue to preclude any and all competition by all means legal or not. He even admits the same, "this changes nothing". (comments after he agreed to the consent decree)
Why Bill Gates will not testify?
If you ask Bill he will tell you that the DOJ will not call him as a witness and somehow that is not fair. Well, I think Bill is an employee at Microsoft. I am sure he knows someone there that could get him on the stand.
What is painfully obvious here is that Microsoft is making one false statement after the other. What is obvious is that they want the public to think that everyone else is responsible for the acts of Microsoft. Wake up Bill, only Microsoft is liable for the acts conducts by Microsoft. Nobody else is. No other company is. Only the conduct of Microsoft employees is truly relevant in this case. If anyone is whining and failing to take responsibility for their own acts, it is Microsoft.
But, what is Microsoft doing? Forcing 100% of all computer consumers to buy IE regardless of their needs. They can not really force 100% of them. Some will buy their computer in parts and assemble it themselves.
Microsoft is simply playing the dumb idiot while exercising their monopoly power to force consumers into buying IE. Just who is being fooled?
Microsoft will force all consumers to buy IE whether they want it or not:
Just listen to Bill Gates. He is telling shareholders that the only thing stopping Microsoft from forcing all consumers to buy IE is the DOJ case. And, he is telling them that Microsoft will win at appeal if necessary.
What Bill Gates is saying here is that he will use the court system to force the sale of IE is necessary. What he is also saying is that Microsoft thinks it has the right to force the sale of any application it chooses.
What ever happened to the right of consumers to pick and choose their own applications? Bill Gates has ignored it completely. And, he is willing to pay how ever many lawyers it takes to force the sale of IE.
November 11, 1998 - Wednesday - Veterans Day
No testimony today. But, nice review to date on ZDNET by Lisa Bowman.
A quick comment on Bill Gate's speech at the Microsoft Corporation shareholders meeting:
1. No product (even if innovative) is excused of antitrust violations.
2. Microsoft Corporation has completely abandoned any pretense of offering
consumers the right to pick and choose their own applications. The
only criteria is what will increase sales. Microsoft forces all consumers
to buy IE without choice and then brags about it to shareholders.
3. Wake up Bill. Most people who know what you are doing could
care less about the products of other corporations. They just do
not want to be forced to buy unwanted and unneeded products like IE.
4. If Microsoft has ever been innovative, name the product.
5. If you have forgotten already all of the innovative products your
company has suppressed via illegal means and unfair competition, we can
make a list for you.
6. Bill, are you really as ignorant as you portray about the power
that a monopolist holds? Maybe you should hire an economist to explain
a few simple concepts. Or, better yet, pay attention to the upcoming
testimony in your trial. If you really are that dumb you might learn
something about your own company.
November 10, 1998 - Tuesday - Microsoft suppresses technology everywhere
What is becoming very clear is that Microsoft suppresses technology wherever it finds it. Should a startup like Netscape come up with a viable product, Microsoft does everything it can (legal or not) to prevent that technology from having a market. Should a major company like Intel come up with a new or innovative technology, Microsoft will do everything it can to suppress it.
There is a very big difference between researching and developing your own competing technology (which Microsoft rarely does) and just being belligerent and abusive to other companies with the hope that they will choose not to compete (which is Microsoft's preferred method).
Is their any doubt that few if any venture capitalists we even entertain an innovative or ingenious idea from a bright and intelligent engineer or developer if that product might possibly compete with a Microsoft product?
I can see any intelligent person suggesting that they would. Just look at the effort (legal and illegal) that Microsoft goes through to preclude Intel, RealNetworks and Netscape from having a viable market for their products.
Microsoft's policy is one of suppression and preclusion. It is their culture. And, their culture is corrupt and extremely harmful to the industry not to mention the harm to consumers.
Microsoft forces the sale of its products via deceit and fraud. Microsoft suppresses competing products by either threatening their competition or simply carrying out illegal acts that prevent their competitor from having a market. They are so arrogant that they even boast of their plans.
Proof of this culture is being presented as evidence by Mr. Gready of Intel.
November 9, 1998 - Monday - "Court told of fear by Intel" (headline for S.J. Mercury News)
What do we know. Or what do we think we know about Intel and Microsoft?
Well. They both pretty much have a monopoly in their respective markets. And, they are big enough to take care of themselves. However, that does not absolve them of any antitrust liability. In fact major corporations are caught fixing markets and dividing up the markets all the time.
But, what do we learn from the Intel testimony (Mr. Steven McGeady, Vice President of Intel's Content Group)?
Well? Microsoft threatened Intel to drop support for the MMX chip if Intel did not abandon efforts in software. Is this so meaningful? Not really. It might be splitting up the markets a bit and that would be bad enough but it demonstrates just how harmful Microsoft is to the industry and to innovative products if not owned by Microsoft.
If Microsoft is going to threaten Intel, then it is very easy to understand how they would feel very comfortable threatening Apple, AOL, Netscape, Intuit, Real Networks and others.
Does Microsoft use its monopoly power to further that power and to secure a monopoly in other markets such as the Internet? It appears that they obviously do. And, it is the effort that Microsoft is willing to go through in using its current monopoly to secure yet another monopoly that is the problem with this testimony. That act violates the antitrust laws. You just can not use a monopoly position to force your way into yet another monopoly market.
So. It is becoming very clear that Microsoft will use all of its power to force itself into a monopoly position by forcing the sale of IE to all consumers and by precluding any and all possible competitors. This, even if it means the suppression of innovative ideas and products from other companies.
Microsoft simply does not support innovation unless it owns it. That is very clear.
Any and all innovation related to products which might compete with Microsoft are suppressed to the fullest extent possible even if it means violating antitrust laws and laws against unfair competition.
It is no wonder that venture capitalists have avoided supporting any product that might compete with Microsoft. Microsoft has suppressed this industry for a number of years in this manner. And, it will continue to do so until stopped by court order. Many corporations develop a particular culture over time. For Microsoft, that culture appears to be "why compete fairly when you can always find a way to cheat?".
The claim by Microsoft that they bundled IE with the OS because customers
wanted it is beginning to sound more like deceit that reality. Most
consumers would much rather pick their own applications. Even Microsoft
supporters do not accept anyone picking for them. IE is a forced
product. If Microsoft is going to try to force Intel to do something,
Microsoft would have no problem trying to force consumers to buy unwanted
products. None whatsoever.
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Three
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Two
Daily Wrap and Flow - Week One