Send me some mail
David Lawsky of Reuters reports today that Microsoft is indeed being outrageous. I'm going to quote some parts of his article here:
A threat by Microsoft Corp. to withhold its Windows operating system from Compaq Computer Corp., the nation's biggest personal computer maker, is one of the key pieces of evidence behind the government's antitrust move against Microsoft.
Microsoft notified Compaq on May 30, 1996, that it was cancelling the license agreement for Windows 95 -- an impossible situation for a PC manufacturer dependent on the monopolist.
One week later Don Hardwick -- group manager of Microsoft's original equipment manufacturing division -- put in writing the price for Microsoft to reverse itself.
Hardwick demanded Compaq reinstate "Microsoft Network and Internet Explorers icons on the Windows 95 desktop on all Compaq Presario machines."
"If you are willing to give Microsoft a clear written assurance that the above will be implemented on all Compaq Presario machines within 60 days of the date of this letter, Microsoft will withdraw its Notice of Intent to Terminate," Microsoft said in its June 6 letter to Celeste Dunn, vice president of Compaq's consumer software business unit.
This makes things look a little different. I'm a lot less supportive of Microsoft's actions at this point. I think this is really rude, and that Don Hardwick ought to be slapped. But the question is whether or not Microsoft has violated the antitrust agreement.
I still don't think they have.
Let me explain. The Microsoft Network is a part of the Windows 95 operating system. So is Internet Explorer. I've already explained my reasoning for this. Therefore, in order for a company to license and install Windows 95, they must license and install both of these products. They are not prohibited from licensing anything else they may want. But just like any other essential part of the operating system, like the Explorer or Notepad, they still have to install these. The Windows 95 setup routine installs them by default. In order to comply with an OEM license, they need to install the software appropriately, which means using the default setup options.
That means putting these icons on the desktop. If you don't put those icons on the desktop, you're not installing the software properly. While Compaq has a license in effect with Netscape, it should be obvious that even though you think you know better you have no right to subvert existing portions of the operating system. I bought a computer once with a copy of the Norton Editor for Windows. Notepad was still there. Why? Norton's editor was vastly superior. Who would use notepad instead of Norton? Norton was the default. The power user knew to use Norton, and the novice would get Norton by default. Why was notepad still there?
Because it was part of the operating system. An essential, standard part of the operating system. Because to remove it would create a problem for the Microsoft technical support team if they needed the user to look at a text file. Internet Explorer is part of the operating system, even if it *is* provided as a separate product, even if it *is* something which the operating system doesn't necessarily need. And while I think Microsoft is being petty and childish about the matter, I think they're quite definitely within their rights.