Exploring the Microsoft Case
Attempts to monopolize the software market have resulted in resentment

Since the latest incarnation of the Justice Department's crusade against Bill Gates and Microsoft began this past October, numerous examples of alleged arm-twisting on the part of the Godzilla of the software business have been reported in the media. As Microsoft's tactics have emerged into the light of public scrutiny, light has also been shed on the resentment that many people seem to feel for the company. Knowledgeable computer users, especially server administrators, know that Microsoft's various Windows operating systems require a significant amount of maintenance and are, in fact, inferior to a number of alternatives, depending upon the application. Now that it's becoming clear, through sworn testimony, that the company maintains its superior position by employing tactics that would get the rest of us jailed for extortion, the heat is being turned up on an already simmering groundswell of industry defiance of Microsoft.

The anti-trust lawsuit is all about Internet Explorer, the Web browser software Microsoft created to compete with Netscape Navigator. At issue is the degree to which the browser software is an integrated component of the Windows operating system. Interestingly enough, Microsoft began its assault on Netscape by giving away Internet Explorer as a separate application, while Netscape, of course, was in the business of selling its software. Microsoft, as the dominant software company in the world, could easily subsidize the freebies, but Netscape watched the market share for its flagship product erode rapidly, especially as Microsoft made (or coerced) new partnerships. Later on, Microsoft developed its browser software to the point, Bill Gates maintains, that it became an integral and essential part of the Windows 98 operating system. And that's his justification for mandating its presence on the hard drive of practically every new PC sold in the country.

Microsoft claims that the Windows 98 operating system and the Internet Explorer browser share so many functions that it's impossible to separate them. On the other hand, Edward Felton, a Princeton University computer scientist, has testified that he and two assistants wrote a program that effectively did just that -- and he doesn't see why Microsoft couldn't have done it. According to computer consultant Glenn E. Weadock, a government-called expert witness, some of Microsoft's biggest customers, such as Citibank and Federal Express, have expressed dissatisfaction with Microsoft's strategy of integrating its Internet browsing software with the Windows operating system. Weadock testified that "no corporate PC manager, in fact no one outside of Microsoft, has ever described a Web browser to me as operating system software."

It turns out that Microsoft is no stranger to allegations of this sort. In November of 1998, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission ruled that Microsoft engaged in unfair business practices, in violation of that country's anti-monopoly laws, by bundling word processing and spreadsheet software that was pre-installed in new PCs. Microsoft asserted its innocence of any wrong-doing, but at the same time graciously and conveniently agreed to desist from engaging in those practices cited by the Japanese FTC.

The government is also interested in the nature of the tactics Microsoft employed to ensure the success of its browser at the expense of Netscape. The CEO of Netscape, James L. Barksdale, testified that Microsoft tried to "squelch competition in the browser market" by building "unnecessary technical incompatibilities" into the Windows operating system that resulted in freeze-ups and error messages when users tried to run Navigator. To bolster their case against Microsoft, government attorneys have called a number of executives with other companies, such as Apple, Sun and Real Networks, to recount their trials and tribulations with the industry bully. Next month we'll examine their experiences.

John F. Clark is the College Technology Coordinator for the College of Communications and Information Studies at the University of Kentucky.

Back to January Issue

Back to Technology Index

Copyright 1996-98, by Kentucky Business Online, LLC.  All rights reserved.

Editorial content is copyright 1998, Lane Communications Group
All editorial materials is fully protected and must not be reproduced in any manner without prior permission. 

Buzzword and the Buzzword balloon are registered trademarks of Buzzword, Inc.  The Lane Report is a trademark of Lane Communications Group.  All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.