Send me some mail
I've been looking at the new Microsoft antitrust thing filed by the DOJ. One of the most important factors I see here is whether or not the DOJ has any right to tell a manufacturer -- even one that I detest as much as Microsoft -- how to market software. I'm going to start with a presentation of the facts in the matter. No opinion, just facts.
According to Joel Klein, Assistant U.S. Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, the DOJ is seeking to prohibit Microsoft from forcing OEMs to bundle IE and Windows 95. He also said the DOJ wants Microsoft to inform those users who have already bought PCs with Windows 95 how to remove the IE icon from their desktops. Klein said that determining whether Internet Explorer is a separate product or integrated into Windows 95 has been the most time-consuming aspect of the DOJ's investigation, which has lasted nearly a year. However, in its petition filed with the federal court in the District of Columbia on October 20th of 1997, the DOJ has documented close to 15 pages of material that clearly show that Microsoft considers IE a separate product, he said.
The relevant sections from the antitrust agreement are myriad. The one I find most telling is from section IV, "PROHIBITED CONDUCT", as follows:
|
E. Microsoft shall not enter into any License
Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products); or (ii) the OEM not licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-Microsoft product. |
Here, I will begin to offer my perspective. Much of what is to follow is my own opinions and extrapolations.
The question at this point is whether Microsoft's requirement that a computer manufacturer license and install Internet Explorer constitutes a violation of this agreement. I don't think it does. I have several reasons for this. I will be using Microsoft Office Professional 97 as the example for the following concept.
Microsoft Office Professional 97 includes several applications. Among these applications, the major components are Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Photo Editor, Microsoft Binder, Microsoft Office Shortcut Bar, and Microsoft Access. Of these, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access are all sold separately. Microsoft Office Professional 97 is available to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for licensing and installation on new computers.
Key factors. Microsoft Office Professional 97 is available only for the Windows 95 and NT operating systems. In order for an OEM to license this product for installation on a new computer, that OEM must -- by definition -- be licensed to install one of those operating systems on the computer, or he cannot legally provide it on new equipment. This OEM license therefore is "impliedly conditioned upon... the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product". It therefore violates the antitrust agreement. The same argument can be made for anyone who wants a copy of the Microsoft Photo Editor, which is not sold separately -- it is conditioned upon your purchase of the Microsoft Office 97 suite. The license included with Microsoft Office 97 also specifically prohibits the installation of different applications on different computers; you cannot install Word on one machine and Excel on a second. You must install a separate copy of the Office package *or* a standalone copy of the desired application on the second machine.
Windows 95 has always included the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser. It is considered an essential part of the operating system software. Microsoft has sold its networking connectivity products separately for a long time; the TCP/IP suite was sold separately from Windows 3.x, and competitive products abound. Microsoft Internet Explorer is distributed separately, and competitive products abound. The TCP/IP suite in Windows 95 has one major competitor in FTP software's protocol stack. Thousands of corporate network professionals swear by it. MetaInfo, I believe, also has such a product, which I have not used but which could very well live up to the fantastic and flawless performance of other MetaInfo products.
MetaInfo does sell a fantastic replacement for the relatively bad DHCP and DNS services included with Windows NT Server. I know this. I have used these products. They rip Microsoft's product a new orifice. Does this make the DNS and DHCP components of Microsoft networking separate products? No. Are either of those products essential to proper use of Microsoft networking? No. They are applicable only to network servers which provide those services. Does this make them separate products? No. Are they distributed separately? Yes. They were included with the Resource Kit and on the Microsoft Developer's Network CDs long before being bundled into NT Server.
Does this violate the agreement? No. Microsoft is providing a dynamic and powerful browser both as a part of the operating system and as a separate product. Just like Microsoft Word, which is available in both Office 97 and its own packaging. Microsoft Word may be uninstalled, replaced with another word processor, even supplemented by an additional word processor. So can Internet Explorer. I run Netscape right next to it. I have no problems doing so. This is not a violation of trust; Internet Explorer can be uninstalled, reinstalled, replaced, supplemented, just like any other component of the operating system. The uninstallation is adequately documented, as is the initial installation or subsequent reinstallation.
I don't want the DOJ telling me how I can buy software. I don't necessarily want the DOJ telling Microsoft how it can sell and distribute software. I think the DOJ should restrict its actions to non-technicalities. This action is frivolous, pointless, and without merit. It is time someone did something about Microsoft, but this isn't what someone ought to be doing.
Microsoft's crime is their broad charter. They make everything. It is to their distinct advantage to build and market software which does not work properly with other operating systems and applications, as the user must then purchase additional Microsoft software. The loyal user is rewarded. The fickle, fair-weather customer is punished. This is pure self-interest. I don't like it, but it's smart business. It locks the user into Microsoft products. If you want perfect performance from your system, use pure Microsoft. At work, I do this on the network servers. Almost everything on the system is Microsoft. Nothing is beta. Our server stays up for months at a time. Other network servers in our building use a mixed bag of software, from this vendor and that vendor and another vendor. They're lucky to go three days without a shutdown and reboot. Why such a performance difference? Simple logistics. Microsoft wants you to use their products. Every company does. But Microsoft builds the operating system. They know where not to step. Most other companies don't. Even without building secret undocumented procedures, Microsoft has the distinct advantage that even when other companies have full access to everything, they won't make as good a product as Microsoft will in terms of stability and performance.
Another company, on the other hand, has a vested interest in compatibility. It is to their distinct advantage to ensure compatibility with a wide variety of applications and operating systems. Netscape is an excellent example. Internet Explorer consistently outperforms Netscape. But Netscape works in places Internet Explorer won't, and vice-versa. Netscape works to remove that situation. Microsoft works to enhance it. Microsoft, once again, wants you to connect from Microsoft systems to Microsoft systems, in vast enough numbers that companies which don't have Microsoft systems will get Microsoft systems.
I have to sum up here before I go off to my engineering meeting. Microsoft has operated in a perfectly logical and intelligent fashion. The action taken by the DOJ is nothing short of ludicrous. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing wrong with the way Microsoft markets Internet Explorer. It is, in fact, a shining example of the way Microsoft should be expected to market everything. I'll return later this afternoon or evening to add more thoughts and suggestions on the situation, but I need to head out of the office now.
Well, isn't this annoying? New facts come to light in the issue. In light of these new details, I need to give this another look. A close look. As usual, the story trickles out in pieces.