As I See It...

A weekly commentary
by James E. Felton

April 2, 1999

First, there was Mr. Gates' defiant and combative video deposition, which reminded me of a kid who fed his dinner to his dog;  Dinner?  What dinner?  Oh, THAT dinner.  Of course I ate my dinner.  What's that the dog is chewing on?  How should I know?   Ok, so I gave SOME OF MY DINNER to the dog.  He looked hungry.  What's wrong with THAT?  Are we supposed to be STARVING the dog?

Then there was all the damning evidence;   Kill Netscape?  Cut off their air supply?  Oh, we didn't mean actually KILL them.  We just meant COMPETE with them.  Meeting?  What meeting?  Oh, you mean THAT meeting.  Well, we certainly were not trying to divide the market with Netscape.  We were just trying to figure out how we could help them make better products.

Then came the famous "liars and crooks" video;  This demonstrartion will PROVE that Windows is harmed by the removal of Internet Explorer.  Please note for the record that this video was filmed in CAREFULLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION on a SINGLE VIRGIN MACHINE which had NO OTHER SOFTWARE installed.  Oh, you see things appearing and disappearing from the screen of Windows 98?  Must be a mistake!  Or maybe it was that damn Produgy software someone accidentally forgot to remove from this VIRGIN MACHINE.  Oh,  you say it looks like the tape was really made from spliced  together shots from SEVERAL MACHINES?  Well, to be honest, this video is ACTUALLY a SIMULATION of the results we had in our lab.  We can duplicate the results while you watch if you'll give us a couple of hours ALONE to rig, uh, I mean set up the proper conditions.  And after the live demo;  uh, well, we COULD HAVE produced the same results as our simulation showed IF WE WERE IN OUR LAB.

So, where does it go from here?

Well, OBVIOUSLY, Microsoft has little choice but to accept whatever terms the states, and the Department of Justice are willing to offer.  But Microsoft doesn't want it to appear that way.  After all, if they give in too easily the DOJ might start filing suits every time Microsoft does something crooked.  And considering the fact that Microsoft's survival is based almost entirely on it's ability to be crooked, uh, I mean on it's ability to INNOVATE...

And as much as the states, and the Department of Justice, might like to nail Microsoft once and for all, they don't exactly have unlimited funds to work with.  So, they know that if they are unwilling to make a suitable settlement offer, Microsoft  will do it's best to drag this case out as long as possible, and make it cost as much as possible.

The Judge?  Judge Jackson absolutely DOES NOT want to have to rule on this case.   He knows that he CANNOT rule FOR Microsoft because that would indicate that he approves of their lies and crooked tactics.  And, on the other hand, if he is forced to rule against Microsoft the result will be that hundreds, if not thousands of "pre-won" business, and consumer suits against Microsoft will follow this trial.  The resulting litigation, and  the  possibility of huge monitary damages would cause Microsoft stockholders to RUN LIKE HELL!  Judge Jackson absolutely DOES NOT want to be responsible for "sinking Microsoft's boat".

So, what is the most likely outcome?

As much as I would like to see the Judge rule against Microsoft in this case , I really believe that the most likely outcome is that Microsoft will agree to ship a non-IE version of Windows 98, and Windows 2000.  And they will also agree to OFFER the non-IE version of Windows to EVERYONE who has bought, or  received a copy of Windows 98.  And further, Microsoft will agree to stop all exclusionary promotions of it's software.  And THEN they'll start working immediately on a kinder, gentler version of their dirty tricks!

Is that an acceptable solution?

Well, there IS one thing I would like to see added to the settlement.  When I bought my computers there WAS NO CHOICE of pre-installed operating systems for PCs.  Therefore, in order to level the playing field, I believe that Microsoft should have to agree to provide refunds to EVERYONE  who wants to replace Windows with Linux, or BeOS, or OS/2, or whatever.  After all, if people CHOOSE to switch to something else, and they decide they PREFER Windows, they'll BUY a copy. In that case, Microsoft loses nothing except the administrative costs of providing the refunds.  I'm pretty sure Microsoft can afford that.
 

Have an opinion you'd like to share? Send it to me!

Back to NC News

Site Design by Jamesefe.