|
|
 |
MICROSOFT
MONOPOLY HOUNDS OR JUST SMART BUSINESS PEOPLE? January 21, 1998 |
|---|
Return to this forum's introduction.
Questions asked
in this forum:
What laws are involved in this dispute? Is Microsoft's practices monopolistic? What is an "operating system"? Why doesn't the Justice Department let the market play out? Can competition and integration co-exist? What are the larger issues of this case? Viewer comments.
NewsHour Backgrounders
January 13, 1998
A background report on the Microsoft anti-trust case.
October 21, 1997
The Justice Department formally files its anti-trust complaint against Microsoft.
August 6, 1997
Microsoft takes a bite out of Apple.
June 11, 1997:
Netscape and Microsoft agreed to limit access to private information online.
September 20, 1996:
Tom Bearden reports on the cyber war between Netscape and Microsoft.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of cyberspace and the law.
OUTSIDE LINKS:
PBS's Robert Cringley muses about Microsoft. December 25, 1997 and January 15, 1998
U.S. Department of Justice
Microsoft's response to the Department of Justice's actions.
Microsoft and Netscape
Michael Adamson of Gothenburg, Sweden, asks:
I have followed the court proceedings closely. It seems clear to me that MS is in contempt. But the longer range and more important question is wheather it is posssible to integrate a browser into an operating system while maintaining competition in the browser market. For example, it would be very useful if the bookmarks(or favorites) filing system were seamlessly connected (integrated?) with the file management program. And the e-mail address book in the browser should be connected to the personal information manager, etc. But these are areas not traditionally part of the operating system. And if they can be included in the term "operating system" then MS will eventually be running the planet. Is it not possible to require MS to publish the protacols for connecting a bookmarking system to the file management system, so that competitors have the opportunity to participate in an "integrated operating system." I want an integrated system, but I don't want the Microsoft company song to become our national anthem.
Mr. Black of the Computer & Communications Industry Association responds:
The sentiments of this viewer are shared by a wide range of our industry's firms, executives and consumers of industry's products and services. By virtue of its control of the personal computer operating system market, Microsoft is well positioned to improperly leverage its near-monopoly into adjacent markets such as application software, Internet access software, and some day, potentially, the Internet itself.
Microsoft is an integral component of our dynamic high-tech industry. But by virtue of Microsoft's dominance in key areas and how it leverages that dominance to expand into and eventually control other markets, the success of our industry which has thrived on competition and innovation is threatened. Microsoft is already the dominant player in spreadsheet, word processing and PC operating system markets. Competition there is nearly non-existent and therefore product innovation is left to Microsoft. And the company is looking for more markets and other sectors of our economy to enter. Microsoft is already taking significant strides into the next generation of television and cable.
Mr. Rule, attorney for Microsoft, responds:
First, it is important to note that in the only decision to date on the question, the court found that Microsoft was not in contempt. And, based on the facts, the most DoJ seems to be able to do is to take Microsoft to task for literally following the letter of the judge's preliminary injunction (which is what those subject to court orders are supposed to do). Given the law, I am confident that Microsoft is not in contempt. So I guess we'll just have to disagree on the issue.
Second, while I am not engineer, it has always struck me that there is perhaps no other functionality that is a more natural, logical, and foreseeable extension of the traditional functionality of an operating system than Internet functionality. (Indeed, as I understand it, virtually every operating system that is sold by companies other than Microsoft includes some Internet browsing capability.) A primary function of operatng systems has always been to search for, retrieve and display information -- originally the information was on floppy disk, then on hard disks, later on CD-ROM, then LANs and intranets, and now on Internet. It would be odd if Microsoft failed to respond to this natural progression and stopped short of extending functionality to the Internet.
Finally, notwithstanding all the accusations from Microsoft's competitors that Microsoft is a closed and controlling company, it has always been a leader in working to provide and disclose APIs (i.e., interfaces) to third parties in order to encourage the creation and development of new and better uses of the operating system. Netscape itself takes advantage of those APIs and its browser works perfectly on top of Windows 95 even with Windows' Internet functionality. The notion that Microsoft will control the world -- marked as it is by a burgeoning means of communication -- strikes me as (excuse me) silly. Microsoft is not the first company about which such dire predictions have been made -- in my tenure as head of the Antitrust Division at the DoJ, the same claims were made about IBM and the so-called "Baby Bell" telephone companies. Those predictions didn't come true either.
Next: What are the larger issues of this case?
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Program
Support
From:
Copyright © 1996-2010 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
