Two weeks ago in this space, I asked people to rethink their assumptions about Microsoft. A week ago at Byte.com, I printed the same editorial.
You would think I had set fire to an American flag while defiling Chelsea Clinton in Times Square on New Years' Eve. The average Byte.com article attracts perhaps four email letters. The editorial attracted 40, all but a few of them violently opposed to my simple suggestion--that maybe Microsoft wasn't at fault for every bad thing that happened to every competitor. I am going to take another bite of the apple at the Byte.com site as well, but I will test run it here. Keep in mind this is aimed mostly at the Byte audience. Everyone who reads this column was quite polite.
I have read the trial transcripts, thank you. In fact, I have read more of them than you have, unless you're an attorney for one side or the other. I covered the first four months of the trial every day. I sat through all four hours of testimony before the Senate Antitrust Committee last spring-did you?
Unlike some of you, I have given some actual thought to the subject instead of reacting viscerally and automatically. None of the email we received, not the thoughtful messages (thank you for your time) or the outpourings of foul-mouthed bile (of which we are and will publish exactly zero) gave me a single fact I hadn't already known.
If arrogance and frat-boy boasting were crimes, every senior official of Microsoft would have been in jail a long time ago. Neither activity is against the law.
In my opinion, Microsoft has committed acts that are prohibited to a monopolist. In my opinion, Microsoft is a monopolist. So, in my opinion, it deserves to lose the present case in federal court.
That does not mean that it destroyed OS/2, or DR-DOS or even Netscape single-handedly. It was aided and abetted in all three cases by management error at the companies in question. Yes, thank you, I have considered the fact that it is still a crime to torpedo a sinking boat, or for a rich person to rob a poor one.
We can argue this until the cows come home--and probably will. The simple fact of the matter is that, with a few exceptions, in the early, critical years of this business, when Bill Gates was establishing his empire, he took software seriously as a business and believed in PCs. That's why he won and others lost. For him it was a zero sum game.
For Gary Kildall (DR-DOS), it was a game period. Business never came before pleasure. Gary was a wonderful person--a much more pleasant human being than Gates. But he lacked the killer instinct. As for IBM, it was years before the company believed in the PC; to IBM it was a smart terminal, a mainframe adjunct. They neutered it the first chance they got, and went for the "business" market without realizing that the whole market was a business market.
The only new idea I've heard since the trial started is the one that started this whole brouhaha--Jerry Pournelle's idea that in the case of some Microsoft competitors, it wasn't murder, it was suicide. That's still a refreshingly different idea in this debate. It struck me and I wanted to share it with you.
Jerry also thinks the government in punishing Microsoft for succeeding. I am not sure I agree. If Microsoft is punished, it won't be for succeeding, it will be for succeeding unfairly. If Microsoft gets off scott-free, I will be as angry as you. They have almost certainly broken the law, and they should not be allowed to get away with it, any more than Standard Oil or AT&T were. But not every Microsoft success stems from illegal activity, and we should keep that in mind.
On the other hand, a thoughtful friend of mine sent this analysis after reading my Microsoft editorial here recently. He asked me to withhold his name:
Consumers absolutely have been harmed by the MSFT monopoly. The price of Windows, and Windows upgrades (which are in many cases required bug fixes to previous upgrades) have remained constant or risen in spite of the fact that the prices of computers have dropped by over 50% since 1995, not even accounting for inflation. The price of the MSFT OS has grown to become a greater and greater percentage of the total system price every year.
The cost of "innovations we'll never see" (from competition now out of business or ventures that failed to achieve funding) is impossible to quantify.
Appreciate if you'd ask Jerry to explain these facts. I would in fact be happy if he could, because the blatant anti-competitive situation as it exists in software today seriously depresses me.
I am definitely NOT a libertarian. Capitalism has a serious end-game flaw. Too big all too often means too powerful. Columbine and other recent examples mean you cannot just step back and "let things take their course".
We are all paying the price in this silly lawsuit for Anne Bingaman's toothless consent decree that allowed MSFT to develop "integrated products". What an insane loophole. I'm not implying you are on MSFT's payroll, only that she must have been.
PS It is illegal to use cash flows from a monopoly-protected business to subsidize entry into a separate business. At the time of the great Windows SDK giveaway, it's arguable that MSFT was not in the monopoly position they are today, and giving the driver development kits away for free was just smart business -- you don't get to be a monopoly by being shortsighted or stupid.
Today, however the situation is different. MSFT has won the game. It's time to put the game pieces back in the box, and let someone else play, or put them back on a level playing field.