Daily Wrap and Flow

December 19, 1998 - Saturday

2:30 PM PST - Microsoft's policy to sabotage Java remains in full force.

Microsoft continues to avoid participating in a cross-platform Java if it can possibly avoid doing so.

As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, Microsoft is not required to license nor participate in any technology.  However, they are actively engaging in the process to continue to sabotage Java.  That policy is not only very clear to the entire industry but is also apparently still being ratified and approved on a daily basis.

1. Delay compliance. (let the sabotage have its affect)
2. Attempt to get a release for a clean room version. (hoping to avoid copyright liability)
3. Fail to support Java on WebTV. (so that only Microsoft technologies can be used by WebTV)
4. Drop support on Apple and Unix. (so that Microsoft's Java is totally platform dependant)

Microsoft remains committed to a policy of preventing Java from having cross platform capabilities and trying to "steal" that technology and make it platform dependant.  (This is true sabotage and it is obviously the policy still in force at Microsoft.)

If nothing else this ongoing policy by Microsoft is proof that the remedy in the antitrust case will have to be comprehensive.  1) Monopoly power may have to be eliminated.  2) The incentive to make software dependant upon a monopoly product may have to be removed.  3) And, the power to carry these kinds of business plans that only serve to violate antitrust law and suppress competition may have to be removed.

The required remedy will be discussed more in the future.  For now, see articles on both "vertical" and "horizontal" remedies.  And, please keep in mind that I will publish on this site any and all articles related to this litigation regardless of viewpoint.

December 18, 1998 - Friday - Court in recession until Jan 4, 1999.

December 17, 1998 - Thursday

4:30 PM PST - Microsoft's business plan of using sabotage is becoming very clear.

Procomp has published an article regarding the sabotage of competitors products.

It is becoming quite clear that only a radical solution to this problem will even begin to address the issue.  If you have not done so, read articles on "vertical" and "horizontal" remedies.  (And, keep in mind, I will post on this web site any and all submitted articles on these subjects regardless of viewpoint.)

1:14 PM PST - A short follow up on the testimony of Edward W. Felten.

What is absolutely clear in this testimony is that Microsoft no longer considers the needs and wants of the customer in its designing of products.  Product design is simply one more method to prevent competitors from servicing customers with their products and an elaborate scheme to preclude any and all competition in the markets of interest to Microsoft.

Read the testimony of Edward W. Felten.  Read the cross examination of Edward W. Felten ( Monday, AM; Monday, PM).  Almost without exception, when Dr. Felten answered with the suggestion that the needs of a customer (heaven forbid) should be taken into account when designing products.  In almost all of these questions and answers the attorney for Microsoft avoided that answer as if that was a horrible idea.

Microsoft has essentially proven in court that they ignore not only the rights of their own customers but also ignore features that would clearly benefit consumers if it might mean that Microsoft can not force the sale of IE upon everyone.  This testimony is extremely telling.

It is extremely clear that Microsoft ignores the customer and designs products to preclude competition.

Does Microsoft want to prove that IE and the OS are a single product?  Sure they do.  That way all consumers are forced to buy both regardless of the merits of IE.  But, it goes beyond even the damage caused to consumers by this effort of Microsoft.

Microsoft wants to make absolutely certain that no other company can offer any products which might offer capabilities or features to web browsers that is not controlled by Microsoft.  Listen to what Microsoft is saying.  Listen to what Microsoft is doing.  Right now, they are forcing all consumers to buy IE so that they not only can increase the price of windows (Microsoft has clearly claimed to increase the price of windows due to so-called added features) but so that they can preclude any other company from introducing a product on the market either now or at any time in the future.

Microsoft wants the same ability to preclude competitive browsers as it has the ability to preclude competitive operating systems.  Why?

See the 20 or so points I have outlined for the Felten testimony.  It is important that Microsoft did not seek to challenge Dr. Felten on many of those points.  For one, they do not want the press to get wind of that testimony.  But, most importantly they wanted to try to prove the IE and the OS are one product.  The only problem with that attempt is that if ignores the rights of all consumers, precludes competition in the industry and greatly increases price of their monopoly product for all consumers regardless of need.
 

9:42 AM PST - Microsoft maintains its course to sabotage Java.

Microsoft has announced its decision to appeal the latest Java related injunction.

An appeal of a preliminary injunction is normally based upon procedural matters (or a claim that the injunction is particularly harmful) simply because Microsoft still has the trial available to defend itself.  Even if the injunction were lifted, the trial will proceed as normal.  And, of course, Microsoft has the right to challenge the legality of the preliminary injunction.  The specific issues they will raise will be disclosed by them as they file the appeal or make public announcements.

However, the significance of the appeal is really a sign that Microsoft plans to continue to sabotage Java if it can possibly do so.  This plan is obvious.

Microsoft does view Java as a technology that would substantially weaken its monopoly power and leave Microsoft operating system open to competition.  If there is anything that Microsoft has proven in court the past year or so is that it will stop at nothing to prevent competition by other companies.  Microsoft is anticompetitive in everything it does.  Microsoft has also suggested it might develop a "clean room" version of Java.  This effort may avoid future copyright or breach of contract liability, but it does nothing to defend antitrust violations.

The very act of spending money to develop a disparate version of Java could easily be viewed by the court as an act intended to prevent competing technologies from being of value to customers due to the intentional fracture of the Java market and an effort by Microsoft to further strengthen its monopoly power over customers and developers.

Of course, this is precisely what Microsoft wants to do.  It wants to prevent Java's attempt to be a cross platform solution.  In other words it wants to sabotage Java.  Everything that Microsoft has done in regard to Java is consistent with the obvious strategic and tactical plan to prevent competition.  As I have written several times, Microsoft could have:

1. Written a compatible version of Java that would conform to the cross platform trademark.
2. Done nothing with Java.
3. Let C++, Pascal, Basic, Fortran and Cobol languages continue to develop WINDOWS ONLY applications.

Or, they could have done what they did.  Intentionally develop an incompatible version to sabotage the Java brand, fracture the market for cross platform applications and prevent alternative technologies from diminishing the control and power that Microsoft has over both developers and consumers.

Anyone can guess which motive they have in mind.  But, Bill Gates even told us his thinking (before his lawyers were consulted), "Java scares the hell out of me".  Bill Gates was not pointing out bugs in Java.  Bill Gates was not pointing out so-called "perfect software" either.  Bill Gates was not pointing out that those other languages could not be written for Windows only applications.

Bill Gates was pointing out that Java could diminish the monopoly power Microsoft holds over developers and consumers.  Nothing is more clear than that.

Only one problem.  Almost any act can be construed by the court to be an act in furtherance of monopoly power or an act designed to preclude competition.  Viola.  Antitrust problems.  The appeal itself may be considered to be a privileged act.  However, the appeal by Microsoft to avoid conforming to the Java concept discloses the motive that Microsoft has for everything it does in regard to Java.

December 16, 1998 - Wednesday

4:46 PM PST - The AOL-Netscape deal does little for Microsoft.

The relevance of the AOL-Netscape has been discussed previously.  Neither AOL nor Netscape offer an operating system available for consumer to pick from.  And, nothing in that merger is going to encourage Microsoft to stop forcing all consumers to buy IE.  It may have extended the life of the Netscape browser, but that is not even certain.

However, Microsoft should be able to review the documents.  There is little harm in that.  But, Microsoft will most likely fabricate a ghost story about how this merger is competition in the OS market when it clearly is not.  All consumers still are required to buy Windows 98 simply because no alternatives are available and Microsoft is forcing all of those customers (plus Apple customers) to buy IE.

Microsoft will have to show a lot more than they have failed to drive Netscape out of business as a sole result of their illegal acts.  In fact, Netscape's merger is substantial proof that they thought they could not survive the act by Microsoft of forcing all consumers to not only buy IE but also install and actually use it.

Reread the testimony from Edward W. Felten.  That testimony offers very strong evidence that consumers have no choice for a browser at all.  If they choose a Netscape browser, they will be forced to purchase, install and maintain two versions of an internet browser.  And, as that evidence points out, their own choice is ignored by Windows 98 in a number of circumstances truly ignoring the customers right to even run the application they want to use at the time.

Microsoft has effectively prevented all customers from using the applications they may choose.

No customer would be happy using a computer that refuses to run the program selected by the user.

But, this is Microsoft's idea of benefit to the consumer.  It clearly is not a benefit at all.  In fact it is a deliberate attempt to prevent customers from using any non-Microsoft product.  Today it is the browser.  Tomorrow all consumers will be forced to use Microsoft Word regardless of their own needs.

There is absolutely nothing that AOL and Netscape can do to prevent Microsoft from harming their own customers in this way.  Microsoft is doing that right now.  And, they are doing that to prevent competition.

3:00 PM PST - Microsoft forces OEMs to sell IE.

This hardly news.  Just about everyone knows for a fact that Microsoft is forcing the sale of IE.

The only question remaining is "How much is Microsoft charging consumers for IE?".

Obviously Microsoft wants to hide this price so as to deceive consumers.  Otherwise, why not tell them?

12:45 PM PST - Microsoft claims that blended code is a reason for forcing consumers to buy, install and use an unwanted product?

This appears to be the only legal defense Microsoft has.  Does Microsoft really think that it can legally force consumers to buy any product they want to sell just by mixing or blending up the procedures in files so that a file utility can not remove them?

Side stepping the legal principals here, has Microsoft abandoned all attempts to distribute products that might benefit consumers?  The majority of Microsoft customers do not want IE at all.  Of those on the internet, about have prefer another browser.  Of those not connected to the internet (including millions of business computers), they do not want any browser at all.

Microsoft has fabricated a weak legal defense for the specific purpose of forcing the sale of a product upon all consumers.  This is classic monopoly thinking.  Totally disregard what customers want and force them all to buy what the monopolist wants to sell.  Microsoft even takes the step of overcharging for it (I.E. see Warren-Boulton testimony that Microsoft is earning excess profits).

Also see my articles on "billions and billions" in direct financial harm to consumers as well as possible liability for "consumer fraud".

And all Microsoft's attorneys can come up with is that the application can not be removed simply because the procedures have been mixed in on a few DLLs?

A software product is not defined by the mix of functions in a few DLLs.  Even Bill Gates knows that.  It is defined by how the manufacture positions the product in the marketplace (I.E. Microsoft writes IE for many operating systems and distributes it as an application on all of them.. ..even Windows 98).  It is defined in the market by the way that competitors offers similar products doing similar work and distributing them according (again with multiple operating systems).  And, it is defined by the way that customers view the application.  They all want to pick and choose the applications they use (with no exceptions.. ...not even Bill Gates).

Microsoft is just using its raw monopoly to force the sale of an unwanted product and using that power to prevent competition.  I see no other conclusion.

12:30 PM PST - Of course OEMs say the browser is separate.

All consumers say so too.  I do not know of a single consumer who will let someone else pick their applications for them (and that includes Bill Gates).  I do know of a number of Microsoft supports who claim the right to pick the applications for others.  But, they would never allow anyone to pick theirs.

See the commentary by Rich Gray on the purpose of the antitrust laws.  It is very helpful to understand why those laws were initially passed and why they remain in effect.

10:30 AM PST - What is the big story of the trial?  Microsoft does not want to challenge Edward W. Felten, the expert witness testifying on the separation of IE from Windows 98.

On Monday Microsoft spent a short while cross examining Dr. Felten and then dropped the cross examination.  Why do you suppose they did that?  Is it not in their best interest to show the judge that Dr. Felten is incorrect throughout his testimony?  Well, not necessarily.  Sometimes lawyers think that asking fewer questions gets a damaging witness off the stand much quicker.  Off the stand means less press.  And, lately less press means more Microsoft sales.

But, look at what Dr. Felten has testified to.  I will not repeat it all here again because it is right down at the bottom of this article.  His direct testimony has been reviewed and evaluated. I have laid out some 21 key points make by this testimony.  They range from evidence showing that IE can easily be removed from the OS without causing consumers to lose any OS functionality to showing that Microsoft even forces consumers to actually use IE if they want support for their OS.  In other words, although as Dr. Felten points out, IE can be removed, Microsoft refuses to honor the choice of the customer over which browser application they will actually use.  Either IE pops up when it is not wanted or the customer is required by Microsoft itself to use IE when contacting Microsoft via the web.

This is a charge that Microsoft ties its browser to the OS in the same sense that other companies have tried to require service contracts if they the customer wants parts (Hp is just one example of many who have violated the antitrust laws in this manner.  Microsoft is no different.)

This testimony is definitive proof that Microsoft prevents its own customers from using any software other than Microsoft software.  Again, this is done solely to strengthen the power of their monopoly.   It is no wonder that Microsoft dropped the cross examination hoping that the press does not pick up on this forced use of IE.

10:15 AM PST - Everyone else is wrong, we are right?

Microsoft is sounding more and more like the beach bully that kicks sand onto the towels of all the other beach bathers and then claims they are all falsely gaining up against him.

Maybe Microsoft will slowly learn that using your muscle every chance you get comes with a price.

10:00 AM PST - Microsoft claims that complaints from OEMs about being muscled is not relevant?

Of course these video clips are relevant.  But, why are they relevant.  They demonstrate how the strong arm tactics of a monopolist can force many other otherwise thought to be independent companies to do what Microsoft wants them to do.  And, what does Microsoft want them to do?  Any and everything that either increases their monopoly power or prevents competition to Microsoft products.

This is highly significant testimony.  It explains why and how Microsoft precludes competition from any market that Microsoft wants to enter.

What else do they show?  They show that OEMs want more choices on how they can package their systems.  They too want to be able to offer the customer of choice of applications.

Microsoft's claim that all damaging testimony is not relevant is incorrect.  Attorneys do try to do that.  But it rarely works.  The public can be fooled but the court is usually quite aware of what is relevant and what is not.

December 15, 1998 - Tuesday

9:13 AM PST - Microsoft's claim that Dr. Felten did not actually remove IE may be correct.

But, it is a mistake for Microsoft to assume that it means those two products are one.  As has been pointed out in the testimony as well as myself, any programmer worth their wage can easily blend the various functions of any two completely independent programs in such a way that the user (after the compilation) can not separate them.

Microsoft's suggestion that this has any relevance at all to the antitrust charges is false.  Their argument only proves that the bundling or tied products can not be untied by the user.  In other words, they used very strong packing tape.  So what?  Whether Microsoft used "code blending" before compilation or an extremely tough plastic container just does not matter.

Microsoft wants consumers to think they are one product.  But, as long as Microsoft distributes IE for other platforms it can not be both integrated and provide a common user experience required of a trademarked product.  IE could do non browser functions only when running under Windows 98, but those functions would not be browser functions.  That is required almost by definition.  If you have a trademarked or branded product it only makes sense if it consistently does what that brand implies.  Microsoft knows this.  (And, this is why they wanted to create an incompatible version of Java.  It would ruin the value of the trademark.  It is for this reason that I characterize Microsoft's acts in regard to Java as "sabotage".  Microsoft intentionally sought to harm the value of the Java trademark.  Interestingly enough, if they decide to write their own so-called clean room version of Java, this possible violation of trademark law would continue.  Violations of laws against unfair competition would also be continued.)

9:05 AM PST - Trampling on the First Amendment by Wendy Goldman Rohm as published by ProComp

Also do not forget censorship as practiced by MSNBC on their Tech BBS.  That forum is supposed to be a public forum.  However, as I have previously disclosed, Microsoft apparently calls the shots on that forum and I have been personally censored on that forum.  Management at MSNBC actually claimed that my views were so ridiculous that I should stop thinking that way.  MSNBC just did not like the idea of someone suggesting that Microsoft was in fact charging for IE.

9:00 AM PST - Judge Robert Bork suggests possible remedies.

In an article published by ProComp Judge Robert Bork suggests the possibility of a structural change to Microsoft.  He suggests (among other possible solutions) that Microsoft be split into 3 companies with each company getting a copy of Windows.  While this is similar to my own suggestion for a horizontal split, it still differs significantly.  I would suggest a 6 or 8 way split with a spin off from Microsoft getting one copy of Windows and 6 or 7 major players in the industry also getting a copy.  Of course, all buyers would have to bid for their non-exclusive copy.  I further assume that those 7 or 8 players would form a voluntary standards group to permit the common design of the required operating system features.

This new standards body would only define the technology to be known as Windows and would not be very likely to add in a whole bunch of applications that most consumers just do not want to be forced to buy.  That body might control the dominant consumer OS design but would not set price for anyone.

Is this still too early to discuss remedies?  Not if the public is to be brought into the discussion.

7:30 AM PST - Microsoft gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

I do not buy the suggestion that Microsoft will retreat, however their legal defense is lacking.

Their fabrication of a legal defense for antitrust violations just is not going to sell.  Edward W. Felten is correct.  There is no technical reason why Microsoft has bundled IE with the OS.

Go back and reread the consent decree (written by Judge Jackson).  What has been presented in court as evidence over the past day or so helps support another motion for contempt of court.

The consent decree was agreed to for the specific purpose of separating the browser sales from operating system sales.  Microsoft (using simple programming tasks) just blended the source code in a vain and transparent attempt to trick or fool the court into thinking that an application and an operating were one product.  They are not.  Microsoft itself continues to treat IE as a separate and distinct product in almost all circumstances. (see details below)

This blending of code in no way benefits consumers.  Evidence has shown that the same benefits can be delivered by Microsoft without forcing all consumers to buy IE and the OS as a single "no choice" sale.  The evidence from Edward W. Felten goes even further.  It proves that Microsoft in fact prevents any competitors browser from being installed by the user and operated without illegal interference from a Microsoft product (IE).  This prove is devastating.  It proves that Microsoft uses its monopoly power and position to prevent any other product from being used.  It proves Microsoft not only prevents competitors from selling their products effectively, but it also proves that Microsoft refuses to accept the needs and wants of all consumers and forces them to buy IE, install IE and actually use IE.  Microsoft even drops support for its operating system is IE is not used by the customer.  Microsoft has been doing this with NT for some time now by forcing NT customers to install and maintain the latest version of IE or forgo any and all support for the NT operating system.

The action by Microsoft to misrepresent the product design, force consumers to buy IE and then attempt to tell the consumers that IE is a "free" product (when it clearly is not) provides additional evidence for a law suit by consumers based upon consumer fraud.  Will this consumer fraud law suit be filed?  If it is, it is likely to be a class action law suit and the potential damages are in the billions.

As has been seen in the last day or so, Microsoft hopes to gain an exemption from antitrust laws based upon a fabricated product.  Microsoft hopes to be able to not only force all consumers to buy IE but also hopes to force all consumers to also use IE with complete disregard for the basic rights of its customers.

Microsoft thinks that providing the only browser for use on the internet will strengthen its monopoly power on the desktop and also give it monopoly power on the internet itself.

This is precisely the kind of conduct that the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.  Precisely.

If Microsoft can pull off this charade, it will not only earn excess profits by selling IE to all consumers ("Just how much is Microsoft charging for IE anyway?")  but it will also gain another monopoly without even having to compete for it and earn it.

Microsoft has been using these same tactics to gain most of their strength in the consumer OS market.  They have effectively defeated both Stac and Lantastic by building file compression and networking into the OS in the past.  While file compression and networking may make sense to be offered by the OS designer, Microsoft has precluded competing companies simply by incorporating those features.  The result is that Windows machines offer incompatible (even between NT and Windows 95/98) file compression and lack of communication with other systems.  That incorporation of features only serves to strengthen the monopoly and prevent competition (in the utilities market and in the OS market).  And, most importantly directly harms consumers by making it more difficult to interconnect various computer systems.  (Sounds  like the Java strategy is an old one?)

December 14, 1998 - Monday - Dr. Edward W. Felten's testimony is highly significant.

4:15 PM PST - Microsoft's defense is proven to be completely bogus and transparent.

Microsoft thinks that if they can blend the code of two very separate and distinct programs that can force all consumers to buy both of them regardless of their needs or wants and avoid liability for all antitrust violations.

Just look at the nature of the questions being asked of Edward W. Felten.

Suggesting to the court that if a customer can not separate out the blended compiled code of two applications, that all potential customers can be forced to buy both is just a bit ridiculous.  The entire industry (consumers, developers, manufacturers and even internet service providers) recognizes the browser as an application totally independent of all operating systems. Even Microsoft insists upon this for Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows NT, Solaris, Hp-UX and Apple products.

Only on the consumer version of windows on which Microsoft holds very powerful monopoly power over consumers does Microsoft think that somehow an application becomes an OS when one or more procedures are mixed in with the code of the OS.

This kind of thinking would flunk any and all students in a beginning computer science class.

In fact, Microsoft only makes that claim in hopes of forcing the sale of IE upon all consumers and exempting a monopolist in the computer software industry from antitrust laws.  Microsoft's approach with this defense is not only lacking in logic it is down right sinister.  Microsoft is not exempt from antitrust laws simply because software is malleable.

Rather the malleability of software necessitates that the definition of products be ascertained by placing IE into the marketplace by Microsoft as an application, by competitors clearly identifying product functionality of internet browsers (as has been done by Netscape, Microsoft and others) and by the internet industry itself in evaluating software, tracking software and developing software for this service independent of a particular operating system (all web server software tracks the operating system used by the surfer separately from the browser).

In simple words, IE is an application because of what it does and how people look at it.  It is clearly not defined as an OS nor any part of an OS simply because some of the components have been blended with other components by a monopoly dead set upon forcing the sale of both products upon the consumer (in this case 100% of all personal computer consumers including Apple).

Microsoft is confusing the likelihood that many consumers might want a browser as one of their applications with the industry wide separation of applications from operating systems.  I guess if enough profit can be earned (see Billions and Billions) by confusing as many people as possible on this point and a fabricated defense for antitrust violations might work, it would make sense to even put the company CEO on the stand and make him look like a fool.

And, of course any Microsoft developers being subsidized by this process would ring right in and try to convince everyone that they should be forced to buy IE.  After all, it does something, right?

2:15 PM PST (Saturday December 12)

Dr. Edward W. Felten takes the stand for cross examination.  His testimony is very significant for many reasons.

Primarily Dr. Felten demonstrates that IE and all operating systems are in fact different programs.  This is not only true of IE and Windows 98 but also true of IE when used as an application from Microsoft on HP-UX, Solaris and Apple platforms.

Microsoft's attempt to force all consumers to buy IE regardless of their needs is based upon a falsified claim that technology requires that sale.  Technology does not require that forced sale at all.  In fact Microsoft's attempt to argue that somehow IE is more or better as integrate must necessarily fail because IE is a branded product distributed by Microsoft on multiple platforms.  This simply means that what ever feature if provided by IE must be provided equally on all platforms.  Otherwise, those features (available only on Windows 98) are not IE browser functions at all.

When you market a product across all platforms and brand it as such (I.E. Internet Explorer), you can not have features significantly different on alternative platforms.  They necessarily have to be the same or the branding fails.  (This is the same limitation and problem that Sun faces with Java.)  Well.  IE is Microsoft's version of a cross platform application.  Microsoft is required to argue to consumers that IE on other platforms is totally compatible with IE everywhere (after all it is branded product).  But, to defend antitrust charges Microsoft must argue that somehow IE offers "better features" by being integrated with the OS.  I would suggest that Microsoft should have to prove these so-called "better features" (obviously unavailable on other platforms but none the less IE features) provide enough value to override the additional cost of the product required of all customers.  Microsoft admits that additional OS features increase the cost of their OS.  So.  If all customers are required to buy IE then all customers are required to purchase a more expensive product than would otherwise be the case.  Microsoft even argues that this should be the case.

So.  If customers preferring a competitors browsers are forced to pay substantially more simply because IE is bundled with the OS, then that benefit to the consumer must be just as significant.  Should the law not also required that significant benefit, then consumers are simply not being protected by the law.  And, the basic purpose of the antitrust law is to protect the consumer.

Looking at the Edward W. Felten testimony:

As I have already pointed out in the Week Eight discussion, Dr. Felten was asked to test whether IE could be removed from Windows 95 and Windows 98.  He was also asked to ascertain if a competing browser (in this case from Netscape) could be installed as the application providing browser functionality.  The short answer is that contrary to Microsoft's PR claims IE can easily be removed from 95 and 98.  And, as Dr. Felten suggests, the Netscape Browser could also be installed to provide browser services for users.

No one software developer should be surprised at this testimony.  Software developers all know that software is in fact very malleable as David J. Farber has used the term.  You can mix and match components in just about any way desired.  (Microsoft just chose a way that they were hoping would allow their company to avoid abiding by antitrust laws.  Microsoft and their attorneys were hoping that they could find a way to legally preclude any and all competitors to their products simply by blending the code in a particular way.)

Edward W. Felten's full direct testimony can be found here.

Internet Explorer Versions 1,2 and 3 are removable from Windows 95 (see paragraph 19, et seq.).
Internet Explorer Version 4 is removable from Windows 95 (see paragraph 28, et seq.).
IE Web Browsing in Windows 98 and Windows 95 OSR 2.5 is substantially similar. (par #35, et seq.).
IE Web Browsing can be removed from Windows 98 (paragraph #52, et seq.).
Netscape Navigator can replace IE to Provide Web Browsing in Windows 98 (paragraph #68, et seq.).
IE 4 Web Browsing on Windows 98, Solaris and MacOs are substantially similar (#75, et seq.).

This testimony proves that Microsoft's claim that IE and Windows 98 are a single product is a false claim.  From a technical standpoint it is false.  From a technical standpoint Microsoft could have easily designed the products to work in the same manner as IE works with Solaris, Windows 95, NT, Hp-UX and Apple operating systems.

In fact, it is very inefficient and expensive to design a blended version for Windows 98 and an unblended version for each of the other platforms.  (Only a monopolist that knows they can force the sale of their product by bundling it with the OS and increasing the price to cover the cost of R&D for the extra work would do such a thing.)

Microsoft should review the benefits of a cross platform system such as Java so that they could avoid all of this very expensive and duplicate R&D.  (Microsoft must really have a lot of faith in its monopoly power to not have to even worry about the recovering of highly inefficient R&D expenditures.)

I guess the suggestion that Microsoft spent hundreds of millions in R&D for IE is about right.  And Microsoft's customers are being forced to pay for that R&D plus.

Edward W. Felten's testimony goes beyond the mere technicalities of showing IE as a separate product.

1. Microsoft did in fact ship Windows 95 without a browser at all. (paragraph #19) (I happen to have a copy of that version so I can attest that his testimony is accurate.)
 

This is only significant because Microsoft (in their effort to rewrite history) has claimed otherwise.  This is just another example where Microsoft offers knowingly false statements in an attempt to avoid legal liability.

2. IE 4 for Windows 95 is shipped by Microsoft as a separate product. (paragraph #28).
 

Gosh.  Again, Microsoft demonstrates by specific non ambiguous acts that IE is just an application like all other browsers and applications in the entire computer industry.

3. In some cases in Windows 95 and IE 4, functions used in browsing and functions not so related are implemented in the same program file. This is just blending of code. (paragraph #31).
 

This is what Microsoft is referring to when they say that all of IE can not be removed.  It is purely an artificial condition created for no reason other than a fabricated legal defense for antitrust violations.

4. The mere fact that two or more functions are implemented in the same file, does not mean they can not be separated without loss of efficiently or functionality. (paragraph #31).
 

This completely disproves Microsoft's claim that blending code offers benefits unattainable without that blend.

5. Very little R&D went into Windows 98 other than R&D related to IE. (paragraph #35)
 

This observation is quite significant.  Dr. Felten points out that Windows 98 adds 1) support for multiple video displays, 2) support for USB and 3) some improvements in power management for laptops.

How is this significant?  Well.  Microsoft spent hundreds of millions in R&D for IE, yet claims that IE is a free product.  If all Microsoft did to 95 is add the above 3 features, the R&D is minimal for Windows 98, yet Microsoft claims it should sell for $200 (new license price suggested by Microsoft...upgrade around $100).

I have been estimating for months now that 70% of the price for Windows 98 is attributable to IE and only 30% attributable for the operating system.  This testimony buttresses that argument substantially.  And, why is this significant.

a) Customers have been falsely informed by Microsoft that IE is free.

b) Customers have not been informed that improvements to the OS are minimal at best. (unless you have multiple monitors, USB peripherals or a laptop, you gain little or no benefit at all from these improvements)  John Dvorak has even suggested that Windows 98 was worth about $25 as a bug fix at best.

I content that IE is not free.  It is the major product that Microsoft is forcing consumers to buy.  Windows 95 has hardly been improved at all.  The R&D for that OS has long been amortized.  And, it appears that little or no R&D went into the basic OS (after all, Microsoft has announced for many years that it is dropping the code base for Windows 95 in favor of  the old NT code base now reliable Windows 2000).

So.  Has Microsoft adopted a campaign to sell Windows 98 based upon deceit?  That appears to be very clear.  The Windows product price is kept high (or increased as Microsoft has suggested) by bundling in IE, a product requiring enormous R&D expenditures, but consumers are falsely told that IE is free.  Consumers are pretty gullible.  Microsoft knows that consumers must buy the OS from them.  And, Microsoft knows that if they tell all consumers that IE is free, they will not object to the higher price necessitated by bundling IE as well (Microsoft calls this adding features when they ask for price increases from OEMs).  So. While the price of computer hardware and software drops over time, Microsoft maintains its high absolute sales price just by bundling in applications.  Microsoft can continue doing this for many years to come.

The price consumers are paying for IE is very significant.  For one, it contributes to the excess profits earned by Microsoft as testified to by Frederick R. Warren-Boulton.  Two, if the court decides to balance the financial harm to consumers that do not need or want IE (either because they do not need a browser or prefer the one they already have) with the minimal or almost insignificant benefit to the few consumers who want both the OS and browser from the same company and can not get the same benefit from separate products, it will be hard for Microsoft to show how the benefits exceed the billions and billions of dollars in harm. And, three is consumers knew the price they are being charged for IE, they may have a rather significantly different opinion about their rights as consumers and their choice of applications.

Microsoft has decided for the above three reasons to falsify their advertising and SEC reports.  Microsoft still claims IE is a free product.  However, as I have said many times, a monopolist has absolutely no reason to give away a product bundled with a monopoly product.  From an economic standpoint it is just not necessary to do it.  Any monopolist knows for a fact that they can just overcharge for the primary product (as Frederick R. Warren-Boulton has suggested) or they can just bundle it and increase the price to cover both  (as Microsoft has suggested when they raised the price of the OS to OEMs to "cover" added features).

The above suggestion is not a secret move or trick.  All companies who have monopolies or monopoly power know for a fact that they can do this.  In fact, if you have a regulated monopoly such as many utilities, the company must receive approval for price increases just to prevent those companies from doing what they all know they can do if they alone decide the price.

It will be real interesting to see if the second economist for the DOJ suggests that the real price being charged for IE may not be disclosed by Microsoft but is a real economic price.  The failure to itemize the price for all items in a sale never proves one of them is "free".

It is just as logical (perhaps even more so) that IE is $200 and the bug fixes for 95 are free.

Reread the article regarding possible consumer fraud by Microsoft in marking Windows 98.
 

This is an obvious observation.  But, the same is true with local networking, disc compression, anti virus protection and even disc defragmentation and other system utilities.

Almost all of what Microsoft argues as a justification for forcing all consumers to buy IE is nothing more than promoting the features of a particular product.  A product that could easily be provided by a competitor.

However, Microsoft will always argue that the application must be purchase from the same company as that providing the OS simply because that company is them.  Those claims are simply advertisements devoid of any basis of a technological necessity.
 

Today Microsoft Word is not bundled with the OS.  And, Microsoft Word is not bundled with Excell (although you can buy both in the suite).  Integration has never required the sale of two products.

Microsoft has claimed that consumers must buy both the OS and IE because they are integrated but that is a false claim.  1) they are in fact not integrated and 2) integration does not necessitate the purchase of both.

However, Microsoft will bundle its entire Office 2000 suite with the OS if the court permits it.

Why not?  If you think Microsoft's claims are logical and legal, then you must prepare for all consumers to be forced to purchase the entire Office 2000 Suite.  Perhaps the enterprise version.

I wonder if all of the corporate customers who seem to support Microsoft in this litigation are willing to buy the Office 2000 Enterprise suite for all of their PC's?  I wonder is home computer users are also willing to buy the Office 2000 Enterprise suite?
 

The testimony points out a number of instances where the OS specifically names IE as the application it will insist upon using.  This is no surprise.

If Microsoft has not already done so, Microsoft will hard code all of its applications to insist upon IE for at least some functionality.  Even non-Microsoft products are beginning to do this.  Do you think that maybe Microsoft has forced these other so-called independent companies to insist upon IE for at least one feature?  Ask Intuit and Adobe.  Ask Hp.  Microsoft has perfected the product tie-in concept to include many applications which they do not even develop themselves.

This effort is intentional and intended to force all consumers to purchase IE and give Microsoft another monopoly without even having to compete to earn it.  Microsoft has enough power to legislate themselves into another monopoly.

This hard coded requirement for IE in the OS and other products is an additional act conducted by Microsoft for the specific purpose of achieving another monopoly product.  And, it has clearly used its current monopoly product to get there.
 

Microsoft has claimed that it is technically impossible to distribute their OS without IE.

This claim is pure non-sense.  No operating system has ever required a specific application in order to operate or support other applications.  The OS does not require networking.  The OS does not require a back up utility.  The OS does not require a whole range of applications which could be classified as system utilities.  IE is not even a system utility.  It might display HTML help files, but any viewer can do that.

This is nothing more than an extremely weak legal argument in an attempt to avoid antitrust liability.  Or, simply a suggestion by Microsoft that it should be the only company permitted to write applications.

Does Microsoft really think that only it should be permitted to right applications?  Bill Gates would say "no", but reserve to himself to decide all situations on a case by case basis.  In the case of Netscape, he decided they should not be permitted.
 

This testimony is consistent with that from David J. Farber and is accurate.

This malleability is very important.  Why?  Because unlike almost all other products the particular composition of software products is totally up to the manufacture.  Any programmer can so-called integrate the Flight Simulator with MS-SQL.  Does that mean that software products can never be "tied" simply because their code can be blended?

There may be a lot of attorneys who argue that traditional tying of products is not possible if the code is blended making it a single product.  Microsoft will certainly argue this in the trial and on appeal. However, that argue is a false and inappropriate one.

To adopt that argument is to exempt Microsoft and all computer software companies from liability for tying any two software packages they might find convenient. You just can not look at the source code or the packaging of functions and procedures in files to decide that issue.

What do you look at?  You look at the product in the market place.  You look at the product as treated by the manufacturers.  Microsoft itself treats IE as a separate product everywhere except in court when it defends its liability for antitrust violations.  Microsoft itself distributes IE as an application everywhere.  It does not even call it an OS when it does so.

Legally, this is highly significant.  Courts are poorly advised if they adopt any concept or legal reasoning which can be manipulated by the defendant at will.  If Microsoft offered IE only when "integrated" with Windows 98 it might have a stronger case.  But, Microsoft itself has insisted upon treating IE as an application.  Why?  Because as an application it can be installed on many different platforms.  This goes to the very important and basic distinction as discussed by David J. Farber that operating systems and applications are separate for many reasons.  Microsoft itself accepts the testimony from David J. Farber as being valid and true when it distributes IE for Solaris (and all other platforms).

Microsoft will argue that Farber is wrong (and a radical) but they adopt his testimony completely by their own acts.
 

Microsoft will undoubtedly argue that to comply with that old consent decree or a new order to sell the browser separately is going to cost plenty and only increase the cost of products to consumers.

Well.  If Microsoft really wanted to do that they would write a 100% Java browser so all of their customers require only one version (remember they developed versions for Unix, Mac and Windows).  By the way, guess who is paying for all of these IE versions?  Not Solaris customers, they do get theirs free.  Not Hp-UX customers, they get their free too.  Not even NT customers, they can download.  The only customers who are forced to pay for not only their version but all versions of IE, are Windows 98 customers.  Windows 98 customers are required to pay money and they get only one version of IE.  This despite the obvious inescapable conclusion that they are reimbursing Microsoft for the R&D on all IE versions. How can this be?  Hint: Those companies with monopoly power can do that easily.  In fact, if you re-read the testimony from the economist, Frederick R. Warren-Boulton, you will see that his conclusions regarding excess profits is not based upon revenue for particular products but rather all products after all R&D on all development projects are taken into account, "bottom line" profits.  So.  Microsoft not only charges its trapped customers too much for what they get, but Microsoft also forces them to pay for products they do not even get.

Aside from the "pie" Microsoft would have to eat in order to be efficient and write one application, it would also be unable to argue that Windows 98 customers must buy IE because it is "one with the OS".

Well.  Again, Edward W. Felten has proven that IE and the OS are indeed separate programs.  One is an OS.  The other an application as proven by Microsoft.

Instead of an impossible task as Mr. Rope-a-Domp has claimed, almost everything required is already worked out for Microsoft.

As a software developer myself, I know that any claim of impossibility is always wrong.
 

This is actually a recurring theme with Microsoft.  From automatically replacing default applications with Microsoft's versions (Media player), to making it appear that competitors products do not work (Real Networks), to telling Windows 98 customers who try to use a boot manager to install Windows 98 that the boot manager will no longer work after installation, Microsoft tries at every opportunity it can get away with to disable or discourage competitors products.

In this case Dr. Felten points out a number of instances where Windows 98 is "designed" to disrespect the customers choice of browser.  David J. Farber also mentioned this feature designed deliberately into Windows so as to require IE or at least frustrate any customer who even thinks they do not want to use IE.

Microsoft has a serious problem with respecting the most basic rights of customers.  The right to configure their own system according to their needs.  If Microsoft can figure out a way to make competing products less useful to customers, it will hard code that inconvenience.

This is Microsoft's "dirty trick" bag.  They have tricks in their for Dr-Dos (even though it only surfaced in the beta version, it remained in their code for Windows 95).  And, they continue today.  Blue Mountain was required to file yet another law suit against Microsoft and WEbTV this past Wednesday.

And, of course, WebTV refuses to support Java and Real Audio despite Microsoft claims to support industry standards.  So. WebTV customers do not get Christmas cards, Real Audio material nor any Java stuff.  Of course you can expect Microsoft to require WebTV to support their proprietary audio and video.

Microsoft has also dropped Java for their IE versions on Solaris and the Mac.  No too surprising.  Why support any standard that is not proprietary?  Microsoft is not legally required to provide a JVM anywhere.  However, they are license holder.  Apparently when Microsoft licenses technology from other companies, they just adopt plans to sabotage that technology even if it means breaching a contract.

How is all of this disrespecting customers?  Well. Microsoft has made an affirmative effort to claim that it is doing only those acts that customers are asking for.  Maybe what they mean when they say that is customers that use Microsoft products exclusively or hold large amounts of Microsoft stock.  After all, Bill Gates is a Microsoft customer, right?

I do find it interesting that Microsoft claims IE is forced upon everyone because they want it when the clear majority do not want it at all.  It is fair to suggest that 50% or so of all customers who have browser software prefer a different brand and a rather substantial number of Microsoft customers do not have nor even want a browser at all.

I guess all automobile manufacturers could claim that all new cars have leather seats because customers have asked for them.  But, that claim would obviously be false.  So too, is the claim from Microsoft.  It is a false claim made solely to rationalize the forced sale of an unwanted product.
 

This is an interesting observation that Edward W. Felten makes.

Microsoft prevents competing browsers from being used to access a Microsoft run Web site used in part to support the Windows 98 product.  Well.  Windows 98 is not the only product that is unsupported unless the customers "uses" IE.

If you try to download support for NT, you will likewise be required to update and maintain the current version of IE.

This is a purely arbitrary restriction designed to require 100% of Microsoft customers to not only purchase and install IE but also maintain the current version.

Microsoft thinks it is okay if consumers install competing software provided that 100% of its customers purchase, install and maintain the Microsoft brand of the browser, IE.  If you buy Windows 98, then you pay for the R&D for all IE versions (as well as a monopoly profit).

This product tie-in is not limited to the OS (NT and Windows 98).  As has been mentioned, even products from other companies also necessitate that IE be installed and used for some functionality.  (Intuit, Adobe and HP are on this list as well as any other company that Microsoft can force to be a part of their monopoly structure).

As has been pointed out, Microsoft claims that Netscape is not precluded from marketing their browser, but Microsoft thinks fair competition means that other company can still give their products away AND can never be used to get support or assistance from them for Microsoft products.

This is a product tie-in much closer to what IBM and HP have been charged with over the years.  Both IBM and HP have been charged with tying their replacement parts with service contracts, hardware with software and in fact Compilers for Cobol with the purchase of the OS.  Now is that not interesting.  Microsoft picks up an old trick used as long ago as 1976 by HP to preclude competitors from its marketplace.  And, what was Bill Gates doing in 1976?  Actually, he was coding a basic interpreter in part so that it could be sold to HP.

Oh well.

Remember, almost any act can be a violation of antitrust law and no act is listed as always being excluded or exempt from such charges.  Microsoft's own lawyers know this.  This is why they try very hard to classify or characterize everything that Microsoft does as benign or innocent despite the obvious and transparent motives for such acts.

Major corporations do not do anything without an identifiable strategic or tactical reason.  At least the smart one do not.  Everyone (including the judge in this case) can decide for themselves whether Microsoft adopts well thought out strategic and/or tactical reasons for their acts or they just do things willy nilly but spending a lot of money so the end product is of high quality.

Of course this is true.  That is what operating systems do.  And, that is what applications do.  This should not even have to be discussed in this trial.  But, Microsoft is somehow claiming that only Microsoft applications can be used by consumers.

Every corporation in the world wishes they had the raw power to enforce such a wish.  Microsoft obviously thinks that it does as demonstrated by their acts in attempting to force all consumers to buy IE, install IE and in fact use IE (not only for general browser functions but as has been testified to, support from Microsoft for the OS itself).

This is the case simply because Microsoft needs to have its IE brand browser substantially similar on all platforms or it is of little value as a common interface.  This issue was already addressed by myself prior to the start of the trial and is rather obvious.  It just would not make much sense for the IE running with Windows 98 to do all kinds of neat browser stuff that IE on other platforms does not do.  It only confuses consumers if the different programs use the same brand.

However, what is truly insidious for Microsoft is to charge their Windows 98 customers for the R&D which should really be attributable to IE versions on Solaris, Hp-UX, Mac, Apple, NT and Windows 95.

Microsoft has done this by distributing to some customers (mainly non-Microsoft customers) free versions while forcing Windows 98 customers to pay for their versions and the other versions as well.

Has Microsoft really done this?  Well.  Frederick R. Warren-Boulton has testified that Microsoft is earning excessively high profits for the industry.  Windows 98 customers pay money.  Solaris customers do not.  Where did that profit come from?  It did not come from those customers who downloaded copies of IE.  It came from Windows 98 customers, the customers who were required to purchase Windows 98 either due to a lack of any alternative offered to them by vendors or required to purchase IE because it was bundled by Microsoft with Windows 98 and bundled by Apple on the MAC.

Microsoft has enough raw monopoly power to force practically all (100%) of consumers to buy IE, install IE and in fact actually use IE.  Again, I ask the question "How much is Microsoft charging its customers for IE?".  We need to see legal proof.  We need to see precise R&D expenditures.  We need economic explanations that make sense.  We need the "decision makers" within Microsoft to explain under oath how they make pricing decisions (not PR releases and advertising, but real pricing decisions).

So far we only know that Microsoft over-charges. What we do not need are advertising slogans, PR releases and claims that are obviously false on their face.

Microsoft has responded in part to the testimony of Edward W. Felten.  So why not?  I'll reply to their reply right here BBS style.  (My replies are in a red bold type.)

If you want to read it as Microsoft has published on their PR site, you may. (I do wish however that Microsoft would link to some of my comments. LOL)

Microsoft says, "Despite extensive effort, Dr. Felten did not actually remove Internet Explorer from Windows 98; he only hid some of the functionality it provides, which obviously does not benefit consumers. He has actually removed almost none of the Internet Explorer software that provides Web browsing and other functions in Windows."

Reply: This may be true.  Microsoft blended the procedures so that specific files do not identify the two products.  So what?  Any programmer can blend the stuff.  But, for Microsoft to suggest that a product is defined by the container files is just false.  They do not even define IE that way.  However it is true that if the customer is permitted to not pay for IE they will be more than glad to do without those features.  Does Microsoft really think that all Microsoft products should be forced upon all consumers because they get the maximum benefit that way?  They would have the maximum benefit.  But, they also would have the maximum price.  Right now, Microsoft only charges for the addition of IE.  Later maybe the Office suite will be bundled in too?  Removal of the suite would also "not benefit consumers".

"Dr. Felten does not testify that there is any practical way to remove Internet Explorer 4 from Windows 98. Rather, he suggests merely that with enough engineering effort Windows 98 can be redesigned so that customers cannot use its Web browsing software to browse the Web – at least not without installing some additional software, such as AOL’s access software. Unlike the Government, Microsoft is committed to developing new software products that do more for customers, not less."

Reply: Less engineering effort would entail keeping the OS an applications separate.  IE is already a separate application on numerous platforms.  And, using a concept such as Java would enable even Microsoft to write one version of the application and distribute it on all platforms including Windows 98.  Microsoft clearly spent enormous R&D dollars trying to force the sale of IE by blending the code on Windows 98 and also writing the application so that it would run on Solaris, NT, Windows 95, Mac and HP-UX.  A single version would clearly be less expensive to develop.

Does Microsoft really think that writing IE as an integrated part of 98 AND as a separate application on NT and Solaris, etc. is less?  I doubt that they believe that themselves.

And, just how pays for all this duplicate development effort?   Windows 98 customers?  They are the ones with their credit cards out.

Testimony that "Web browsing" can be "removed" from Windows 98 says nothing about whether Internet Explorer is a separate product.

Reply: True.  It is a separate product because Microsoft brands it with it own trademark, distributes it as an application on NT, 95, Solaris, Hp-UX and Apple products.  However, removing it proves that the OS absolutely does not depend upon it.  It is only an optional product forced upon all consumers so that Microsoft can increase its revenue and gain another monopoly.

"Dr. Felten’s testimony that Windows 98 can be redesigned to disable the built in Web browsing features proves nothing. You can surgically remove someone's right arm, but the arm was certainly a useful part of the person's body before it was removed. In the world of software, with enough engineering effort nearly any   functionality could be hidden or "removed" from nearly any product."

Reply: Microsoft confuses the generic product with the branded product. IE is not the equivalent of a right arm.  It is more like a baseball cap. Not a single consumer needs it.  Not one.  (Save for the artificial requirements placed by Microsoft to force the use of IE. See discussion above.)  Any customer who wants a baseball cap already has one (or more) and would insist upon selecting their own. Any customer who wants a browser either already has one (or more) or would insist upon selecting their own.  (Even Microsoft ISVs, employees and stockholders insist upon picking their own browser.)    Do you really think that Bill Gates will wear a baseball cap that I would pick for him?  (Nerds do wear those caps with the little propellers on them, not?)  Not a single consumer will permit someone to pick their applications for them. Again, not even Bill Gates.

Microsoft falsely assumes that it alone can provide this service to all customers.  And, somehow it actually thinks that it has the legal right to be the sole provider of that product. All consumers reserve that right to themselves (including Bill Gates).

However, Microsoft is right, artificial product bundling can always be created by Microsoft and can always be undone with no harmful affects.  But to suggest that their version of a browser is a right arm makes no sense at all to anyone.  In fact, Edward W. Felten's testimony proves that Netscape could perform essentially the same service.

"Dr. Felten agrees with Microsoft that Internet Explorer 4.0 cannot be removed from Windows 98 without seriously degrading the product. "

Reply: Well. Yes.  Once removed Windows 98 will no longer browse the web.  But, almost all consumers would prefer the price reduction and pick and choose the technology they think is best to perform that function.  Not even Bill Gates will allow someone else to pick his applications for him.
 

"Dr. Felten has intensively studied Windows 98, and even worked with Windows 98 source code (which is normally not made available to third parties). Dr. Felten’s testimony confirms what Microsoft has been saying for more than a year: Internet Explorer consists of a set of platform services (which Dr. Felten calls "shared  program libraries") that other parts of Windows 98 and independent software programs rely upon. If the Internet Explorer software actually were removed from  Windows 98, the operating system would be severely degraded and third party software programs would fail to function properly. Therefore, Dr. Felten makes a point in his testimony of saying that his "prototype removal program" does not remove these shared program libraries (paragraph 56). These shared program libraries are the heart of Internet Explorer. "

Reply: Yes.  Microsoft has forced all consumers to buy IE even if they can disable it.  But, Microsoft refuses to address the basic right of all consumers not to be forced to buy IE.  Are they truly so arrogant to assume that no reasonable customer would not want to purchase IE?  (Hint: Not according to comments coming from Microsoft employees.... they decided quite the opposite.)

"In light of this testimony, reviewers can rightly say that Windows 98 is so integrated that even a Princeton computer scientist couldn't remove Microsoft's               Internet technology.  "

Reply: Blending code is supposed to be some neat trick here?  Any programmer can do that.  Any programmer can prevent the separation of code after it is compiled.  However, every one in the industry knows for a fact, that the testimony from David J. Farber and Edward W. Felten is correct in that the grouping of procedures by Microsoft is arbitrary from a technological standpoint.

Microsoft has used this grouping in the hope that it exempts Microsoft from abiding by antitrust laws and not for any benefit at all for users.

"Dr. Felten had to modify Windows source code in order to hide access to Web browsing. Imagine the erosion of familiarity and functionality if every PC maker could modify Windows source code as they chose. "

Reply: And Microsoft wants to force all consumers to buy IE regardless of their needs.  And, Microsoft wants to force all consumers to buy the Office 2000 Enterprise Suite regardless of their needs.

This is not a question of technical capabilities at all.  In fact it is easier to not bundle IE with the OS and allow the customer to pick and choose their own applications.

Microsoft may have some ideas about what makes good applications but they have absolutely no right to force their ideas or plans upon consumers.  They have no right to preclude Netscape from having equal ability to market their products.  They have no right to preclude any competitor from having an equal ability to market their products.

Microsoft thinks they have an exclusive right to sell their products to all consumers AND force the sale as well.

"In order to create his "prototype removal program," Dr. Felten modified Microsoft's source code for Windows. He describes this action in "Appendix B: Actions    Performed by the Prototype Removal Program." "

"The Government appears to envision a world in which any computer manufacturer has the right to modify Windows source code as they please, notwithstanding     copyright laws to the contrary. If the government had its way, consumers would quickly be confronted by dozens or even hundreds of incompatible versions of     Windows. In effect, Windows would cease to exist, and software developers would be forced to create custom versions of their applications for each version of       Windows or only make use of functionality that they believed (at their peril) would be included in all versions of Windows. "

Reply: The copyright laws do not provide to Microsoft the right to freely design products at all.  The copyright does nothing more than allow Microsoft to be the exclusive beneficiary of products that they may design that do not otherwise violate the law.  The copyright law is not a law protecting freedom of design.  And, it is not a law that offers a defense to antitrust violations.  It is not even a law that preempts the fair competition laws of the various states.  Microsoft may argue this point on appeal but they will lose.   The copyright law only protects Microsoft from acts of others to duplicate their work.  It does not even begin to address rights to design certain products.

Microsoft seems to be arguing that it has a right to be a monopoly?  Does Microsoft think it has a world wide franchise for all software?

Hint: Different boot up screens do not require any change in application software. I guess the Microsoft attorneys just do not know that.  How a computer looks when the machine boots up is all but immaterial.  The testimony John Soyring of IBM illustrated that many companies in fact do not even want a common generic face to appear.  They want their custom application to appear.  They may even want most of the general features of the operating system to be disabled and unavailable to the specific user.

Of course, Microsoft wants to preserve its exclusive advertising platform.  That want is transparent.

In summary, as can be clearly seen by the replies Microsoft offers, it thinks that Microsoft corporation is the sole company that can offer computer software and that it should also have the totally unrestricted power to force all consumers to buy whatever selection of application it may decide they must use.

Microsoft seem to think that the only choice a consumer should is which credit card should be used to ring up the sale.  It and it alone will decide all other issues.  Notice how the above comments from Microsoft focus entirely upon the self described legal rights of Microsoft Corporation and completely ignore any and all rights that its customers might have. Yes.  They are defending themselves in court.  But, they are also forcing all consumers to buy IE right now.  And, it appears they also force all consumers to use IE or loose support for any and all Microsoft products. (see Felten testimony)

The only decision that Microsoft does not reserve for itself is which credit card the customer users.
 

Daily Wrap and Flow - Week Eight
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