-----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of you like what Judge Jackson ruled yesterday; and some of you do not. For a guy who's been a professional Microsoft watcher, who's been public about his opinions about Microsoft from practically the dawn of personal computers (my first job as a computer magazine editor came in 1983), I found my reactions to the judgment yesterday somewhat mixed, and more complex than I'd expected. But regardless of what any of us thinks about it, it doesn't mean much in practice right now. Microsoft will seek, and almost surely get, a stay of the divestiture pending appeal. That's the real show.
So, is Microsoft bad? You can line up a zillion lawyers who will say "Yes!" The judge ruled that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that it abused its market position to bully other companies to its will. Is that true? I've written in the past that it probably is. But, not, in my opinion, about the basic points in the case that was before Judge Jackson. To greatly simplify, was Microsoft honestly doing the right thing by putting a Web browser into Windows? As one reader wrote to me, "OF COURSE IT WAS!" Virtually every operating system now has Web browser services. To debate this point is silly. It's like saying "if man were meant to fly he'd have wings." Every operating system designed to work with the Internet (was that a redundancy?) needs Web browsing services. But ... did that give Microsoft the right to bundle a huge package of Internet-oriented services, including a full- featured Web browsing application, e-mail package, and a bunch of other stuff into Windows? It did not. Microsoft was wrong, in my opinion, to do that. It hid behind an honest need for Web browsing services in attempting to muscle its way into Netscape's market position.
But that leads to the next question: Does that wrong merit hewing Microsoft in two? Of course not. That's patently ridiculous. The problem with splitting Microsoft in two is that it's both a laughable over-reaction, and is also pointless. In other words, it's more a punitive action than one that is likely to have a positive effect on the marketplace. Besides, the trends in the computer industry are already passing it by. Worse, I think, the Department of Justice's witch hunt will ultimately be seen by many in the industry as something that hurt business users and consumers, not helped them.
Bottom line, Bill Gates is right when he says that the personal computing movement, which began in earnest in 1981 after the release of the IBM PC, has brought prices for computing way down. If it were up to the rest Sun, Oracle, IBM, the many mini- computer makers of the 70s, and even Apple, we'd all be paying a whole lot more for powerful personal computers. Back in the 80s, Microsoft and Intel were like the revolutionary leaders who fought to give computing to the masses. When Bill Gates was a nerdy long-haired kid at Harvard, students and professors had to sign up for computer time days in advance. Computing was reserved for an elite few, and the rest of us were left counting on our fingers. It's Microsoft, Intel, and literally hundreds of other personal computer companies that over the last 20 years have brought computers to roughly the level of market penetration that TV sets enjoyed in the late 1950s/early 1960s. Why has the world forgotten that?
Microsoft has not been a perfect operating system leader, or application leader. It is clearly a company that plays hardball in the industry. And it has cut some corners it shouldn't have. But more than most companies that make it to the top, Microsoft is customer focused. By and large, business customers and consumers have not been hurt by this company. In fact, the pricing has been about as good as you could ever expect (over the last few years) and though we all grumble about it, even the product quality has been better than we might have gotten from other companies in the same position.
--- The Real Meat of Jackson's Decision --- Breaking Microsoft up seems to me to be for show. The most interesting thing about Judge Jackson's ruling isn't the decreed divestiture (the details of which make little sense to me because the so-called App-Co would be far more powerful than the OS-Co, and also have a lot more revenue potential) -- it's the restrictions that are being placed on Microsoft for at least three years. You see, I'm in nearly perfect agreement with most of these restrictions. And, in fact, I think our legal system should invoke most of these restrictions and call it a day. They should take effect immediately. Here's my interpretation of the restrictions:
1. No more strong-arming OEM PC makers. The judge ordered Microsoft to create uniform pricing, terms, and conditions for supplying copies of Windows to PC makers for bundling with new PCs, and that all those details be made public on a Web site. Microsoft will not have the right to terminate an agreement with an OEM without having first given that company written notice of the reason for termination and 30 days' notice to address the cause.
2. Don't threaten PC makers with loss of Windows to force them to bundle Microsoft Office. The judge clearly stated that Microsoft may not withhold Windows from any OEM (original equipment manufacturer) because that company is or is considering bundling a non-Microsoft application with its new PCs.
In my opinion, numbers 1 and 2 are the areas where Microsoft needs the most restriction and monitoring.
3. Let PC makers configure Windows they way they want to. Jackson ordered that Microsoft in no way restrict an OEM company from modifying the boot sequence, startup folder, Internet connection wizard, desktop preferences, Favorites, start page, first screen, or other aspect of Windows.
The only part of this I agree with, as written in the agreement, is the start page. Frankly, the OEM PC makers have proved over and over again that they don't know how to do software, and their attempts in the mid-1990s to overlay Windows with other interfaces caused a great deal of confusion in the marketplace. Of course, OEM PC makers should be allowed to load any software they want to on their PCs. And they should be allowed some latitude in how they configure Windows. But, honestly, for consumers' sake, Microsoft should have partial control of how new PCs look and feel. We need some consistency, otherwise new users will be totally stymied.
4. Microsoft must disclose all secret stuff they may have inserted in the operating system, such as hidden APIs, Communications Interfaces, and "technical information." Third- parties have for years accused Microsoft of inserting secret short cuts in Windows that no one outside of Microsoft knows about that supposedly affords Microsoft's applications development teams a special edge. If nothing else, this order seeks to create a standard procedure by which Microsoft must publish or disseminate information about technical aspects of its operating systems.
Third-party companies that have fostered a close relationship with Microsoft often know more about Windows than Microsoft's own people do. But it's certainly true that Microsoft feels no particular compulsion to publish deep technical facts to the industry at large in a timely manner. It does so when it gets around to it. And sometimes it forgets to get around to it. So, while I'm less sure that the hidden APIs and trap doors exist, I agree with the restriction. More information should be forthcoming, and on a prescribed schedule.
5. Microsoft must never knowingly interfere with the performance of any non-Microsoft middleware without communicating with the company in writing. In other words, if Microsoft knows that something it's about to do with Windows might inadvertently break a software or hardware maker's product, it must communicate that to the third party company. Also, Microsoft must not threaten or take action against any third party hardware or software company, such as withholding licensing terms, discounts, technical info, marketing and sales support, certification, and so on, because of that company's plans to use or not use Microsoft software.
6. Microsoft may not enter into or enforce any existing agreement in which a third party agrees to restrict its development, production, distribution, promotion, use, or payment for any non- Microsoft platform software. In other words, PC makers and others can't be told they will use Windows only. They can choose other operating systems if they want to.
I couldn't agree more with this one.
7. Microsoft is banned from contractually tying any Microsoft software, which it also distributes separately, to Windows -- whether or not this other software is freeware.
This is the Netscape clause, folks. I fully agree that Microsoft should be prevented from tying applications to Windows in an effort to compete with any other software maker. But as written in Jackson's Final Judgment (see "Ban on Contractual Tying"), this one makes no sense to me. This restriction could conceivably prevent the distribution of all sorts of things with the operating system. For example, the Microsoft Windows 95 PowerToy known as QuickRes, which allows you to change screen resolutions on the fly, became a nice user enhancement in Windows 98. Microsoft would be prohibited from adding such things in future. More than likely, it will stop distributing a lot of the freeware it distributes now. It appears this restriction will also prevent Microsoft from updating Internet Explorer within Windows. One part of the restriction that I do agree with is that anything Microsoft incorporates within Windows must be removable. That Microsoft ever claimed that Internet Explorer (the software application package) could not be removed from Windows was ridiculous folly. They only had a leg to stand on there when they talked about not being able to remove basic Web-browsing services with a browser window that doesn't even say "Internet Explorer" on it. There I would agree with them that the Web browser should not be removable.
