I am afraid that this is going to be one of those dry, sober, voice-of-reason-type columns. I'd much rather do a crazy, irresponsible, hyperbolic diatribe, and I'm sure that's what you expect of me.
Trouble is, with respect to this particular subject, the other diatribesmen just got there first. The subject is the final resolution in the case of Microsoft v. Justice.
The facts of the decision are as follows: After the FTC deadlocked on its investigation of widespread claims of monopolistic practices by Microsoft, the Justice Department, under Anne Bingaman, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, took over the case, expanded it beyond the original scope, threatened a lawsuit, and reached a settlement that represents a retreat to more or less the original FTC scope: No more per-processor licensing, no more multiyear licenses, and no more nondisclosure provisions that effectively prevent developers from working on products from Microsoft's competitors.
The meaning of these facts has been variously interpreted, depending on who's doing the interpreting.
Justice brags that it went toe-to-toe with Bill Gates and Bill blinked. Microsoft disagrees about who did the blinking, and claims that the decision means nothing and will have no effect. Computer-magazine columnists mainly take one of two stances: 1. The decision means nothing and will have no effect; or 2. quit your whining, you sniveling developers you. Microsoft's competitors mainly say either: 1. The decision means nothing and will have no effect and it's just not fair; or 2. give us a level playing field and we'll crush Microsoft like a flea.
All of these claims are hooey. Taking the last first: On a level playing field, Microsoft would still have you for lunch. No other software company today can match Microsoft's understanding of the industry or its marketing savvy, and few can match its dedication (killer instinct, need to dominate) or its depth of experience. Even in some dream world in which technical excellence is all that matters, Microsoft could prevail simply by moving technical excellence up from fifth to first priority. "Level playing field," my eye.
As to the "quit your whining, be a manly man, don't cry to the government" position: That's fine if you like rolling in the mud. Without rules, the dirtiest fighter wins. Or the richest; in any case, that's probably not you.
As to the claim that the decision means nothing and will have no effect, I'd say that's up to Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft formerly engaged in certain practices that presumably gave it a competitive advantage. At least with respect to those practices, that advantage has now been removed. This removal represents an opportunity for someone. Of course, there is no guarantee that someone will seize this opportunity.
It's even been claimed that Microsoft got the settlement it wanted. Excuse me? Microsoft wanted to be forced to change its licensing policies and be branded a monopolist?
True, the settlement was disappointing to critics of Microsoft's practices in that it addressed only three of the issues in contention. But does this mean that Justice caved in to Microsoft on the other issues, or was it only pursuing them as a threat to get Microsoft to knuckle under on these three? We don't know. We do know that nothing in the settlement rules out further action by the Justice Department or a class-action suit against Microsoft over other alleged monopolistic practices.
It's not over till it's over.
editor-at-large
Copyright © 1994, Dr. Dobb's Journal