In this column, the third in a series on the Microsoft anti-trust suit, we will begin a look at some of the threats to Microsoft's industry dominance that have come about partly as a result of the trial, which hasn't been going well for Microsoft. The latest significant developments in the case concern the software behemoth's attempts to discredit the work of Princeton University computer scientist Edward Felten and the Justice Department's growing conviction that Microsoft should be forced to divest itself of several of its constituent operations.

As I mentioned in an earlier column, Felten and a couple of graduate students wrote a program that removes Internet Explorer, Microsoft's browser software, from the Windows operating system without affecting the performance of Windows. In open court, attorneys for Microsoft played a videotape that appeared to demonstrate Windows 98 ran more slowly and sometimes failed to work at all without the Internet Explorer software. Much to their surprise and embarrassment, Justice Department attorneys were able to find inconsistencies in the tape that showed multiple computers had been filmed, though Microsoft had said it was only one, and also demonstrated that at certain times the operating system on the tape was not even Windows. The judge in the case, understandably incensed, insisted that Microsoft do a live demonstration in court, which, once accomplished, did not fully support Microsoft's claims.

In the meantime, the Justice Department and the 19 states that are suing Microsoft are already contemplating how to go about breaking up the industry Goliath into several sub-Goliaths, which they are calling Baby Bills (Gates) after the Baby Bells that resulted from the divestiture of AT&T. Another scenario would have the Justice Department requiring Microsoft to license the Windows operating system to its competitors. Whatever the outcome, the light of public scrutiny thrown on Microsoft's questionable tactics is at least partially responsible for a surge of industry defiance that is sure to challenge Microsoft's dominant position in the industry, especially on the server side of things.

Your garden-variety consumer is probably not aware that Microsoft markets anything but Windows 98 and the Office suite of software. Computer users who work in corporations or large institutions know, however, that Microsoft banks heavily on its Windows NT operating system for networked servers and workstations in the business environment, and this is where the most significant threat to Microsoft lies. For instance, Oracle is pursuing alliances with Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Sun to build computers solely to run its database software. To run it over Windows NT, says Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, "just makes it bigger, slower, less reliable and less secure."

However, the two main contenders against Microsoft are cousins -- the Unix and Unix-based Linux operating systems. Unix, of course, has been around for quite a while, starting out as a mainframe operating system, but later trickling down to the desktop via the short-lived NeXT corporation and now embodied as Sun and SGI workstations. Linux is a wonderful example of free and open not-for-profit collaboration among computer enthusiasts, much like the Internet and the TCP/IP protocol were in their earlier days (and it really is free!). Even Microsoft admits the challenge of competing with Linux. In an internal memo, one Microsoft software engineer acknowledges that their usual marketing strategy of creating FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in their competitors will not work with the developers of Linux. And in a bold stroke, Linux users are beginning to demand their money back for Windows software installed on PCs that they buy, using the Windows licensing agreement as the basis for their demands.

Long live the revolution!