If you want to define a peck-order at Microsoft, I guess Kempin would rank just after Maritz.

To consumers that either want no Windows
or a refund Dell keeps screeming and kicking to force Windows down
their throats and is thereby violating the license agreement that it
bundles with the Microsoft software that it ties to each and every
system that it sells.

Here is a discussion of a recent attempt to get a refund from Dell: http://lists.essential.org/am-info/msg01700.html
and
a additional message with undetailed but, if true, interesting story
how Dell is alleged to extend its tying practices even beyond the
operating system. http://lists.essential.org/am-info/msg01702.html

I
do not know about Australia (scene of the refund request of the first
message) and I do not know about the US, but if Dell would also follow
the described tying policies in Europe, they would be violating the law.

“Microsoft’s lawyers also
refused to accept that this case is as much a public-relations battle
as a legal one. And on the publicity front, as even they now concede,
they have been clobbered.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/242246.asp

Compaq testimony points to murky secrets of MS relationship
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990224-000024.html

No frills, just links. And they are maintained on a daily (hourly?) basis.

(Link courtesy of Rick Fane.)

See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990224-000025.html

In Engstrom’s testimony, he denies telling Apple that
Microsoft would not compete with them if Apple used Microsoft’s
technology instead. In any case, competition would be rather
meaningless if Apple decided to adopt their rival’s standard. He does
say that he tried to tell Apple to use the Microsoft multimedia
technology and that, if they decided to compete in the multimedia
playback market, Microsoft would win. This sounds very much like the
attitude of a company that does not wish to compete on the merits.
According to Engstrom, Microsoft’s idea of competition is “needless
duplication.”

A report on the testimony can be found here:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/bs/story.html?s=v/nm/19990224/bs/microsoft_2.html

When
asked, Kempin condeded that, “in general,” computer makers couldn’t
customize their registration routines until Windows 98 appeared in the
market — some eight months after the start of the legal battle between
Microsoft and the Department of Justice.’

the Register - How MS tried to keep the lid on its OEM customers

Washington Post - Microsoft Officials Deny Sabotage

“Boies
noted that a key difference between the two tapes is that the Compaq
Presario depicted in the newer tape contains an icon for Netscape’s
browser. The November tape could not have featured this, Boies said,
because Compaq did not make Netscape an option on this line of
computers until January of this year.”

Sm@rt Reseller - MS: OEMs can’t rewrite Windows

Sm@rt Reseller - MS v. DOJ: What went wrong?
Mary Jo Foley wonders if MS executives are arrogant, stupid, fatalistic or what.

Removing Browser Would “Butcher'’ Windows-Microsoft
LA Times By DAVID LAWSKY, Reuters
MS: Butchering of Windows Shouldn’t Be Allowed
Sm@rt Reseller By Mary Jo Foley

Let me see if I get this. . . the company that is defending their right
to preserve the boot-up sequence of Windows is complaining that Sun was
“inhibiting competition by limiting the ability of developers to modify
Java”. Windows is this great work of art that is not to be tampered
with. . . but Sun’s language is fair game for anyone to modify? Wait, I
forgot something, it’s Microsoft that’s tinkering with Java. I must
consider that:

There, now even I can see that it’s all right.

Judge grills Microsoft exec
Inter@ctive Week Online By Will Rodger
Joachim Kempin put through the wringer over claims that Microsoft used Windows to threaten Gateway.

Company set Windows price without regard to competition, exec says
MercuryCenter BY DAVID L. WILSON
Joachim Kempin denies the existence of “network effects”.

Vandals at the gates
MercuryCenter Commentary by Rich Gray
Mr. Gray takes a little time to consider the two new antitrust lawsuits.

MS exec denies Java claims
USA Today
A
Microsoft executive denied claims that the company illegally tried to
“pollute” Java, a computer language that threatens its Windows
dominance.?

See John Lettice’s analysis of the standard agreement in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990226-000001.html
(Update: See also John Lettice on the “great white whale”: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990226-000004.html.)
So why aren’t OEMs allowed to change the installation of the systems that they ship at will?

The
answer Mr. Kempin volunteers is that Windows is just like “Moby Dick”
and that Microsoft employees are just like Herman Melville: they take
pride in their work and don’t want to see any part of it changed by a
third party.

Another interesting part of Mr. Maritz testimony is
that Microsoft doesn’t consider the pricing of other operating systems
when setting the price of Windows because these other operating systems
are supposed “inferior”.

Anybody who has read Mr. Maritz
testimony should now be at least confused. Mr. Maritz spelled out how
much competition there is, including videos showing how accomplished
and easy to use Linux is. I’d say that Mr. Kempin’s testimony
contradicts that of Mr. Maritz.

During the trial, Microsoft has
almost daily released articles to the press, placed advertisements in
national newspapers and has appeared on the stairs of the court without
fail. This starkly contrasts with the government’s relative quiet to
the press, with only a regular appearance (but not without fail) of
David Boies on the stairs of the court.

And yet, the
pro-Microsoft press now contends that the government has been waging a
public relations war while Microsoft has merely forwarded dry legal
arguments in court. So what happened in court? We are being told that
Microsoft’s legal arguments are unchallenged, that the government
merely discredited their witnesses, but not their arguments. Such
arguments ignore basic logic. If a witness holds both A and not-A, this
can be personalized, and hence be made attractive to the press, by
pointing out the lack of moral rectitude of the witness. Logicall, and
hence legally, however, it means that the witness adheres to a set of
standards from which it follows that every statement is true, which
obviously is false. Clearly, a witness who adheres to such standards
has no relevant testimony to give. The same goes for witnesses
contradicting each other, such as senior vice-presidents Paul Maritz
and Joachim Kempin.

—-
Melville’s struggle

Herman
Melville never had a quiet moment after writing “Moby Dick”. With
competitors breathing hot in his neck, he had to add new sections to
the book continuously and improve those in the earlier release of his
book. Of course, within three years after Melville stopped working at
the book, it was superseded by the competition and was not heard of
since.

Lesson from this ironic story: change means something
else to “Moby Dick” as it does to Windows, so Mr. Kempin’s analogy
concerning Microsoft’s “pride in authorship” of Windows doesn’t hold.

Rosen takes lead as least credible MS witnessthe Register
“Dan
Rosen, previously senior director, strategic relationships in
Microsoft’s so-called advanced technology group, and now general
manager for new technology, has taken over the yellow jersey as
Microsoft’s least credible witness.”

Trial Focuses On Document From Gateway
Washington Post By Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Microsoft endgame looms
MercuryCenterMercuryCenter BY DAN GILLMOR
If the Microsoft Corp. antitrust trial were a play, would critics call it a drama or a farce?

Microsoft’s “Harpoon” Defense
Wired News by Declan McCullagh

Microsoft Picks Prices Without Worry of Competition
Reuters

Company set Windows price without regard to competition, exec says
Mercury Center BY DAVID L. WILSON

Microsoft’s Kempin Sure Has a Way with Words
Buisness Week Online By Mica Schneider

Judge grills Microsoft executive
CNET news.com

See: http://www.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/volume_III/Issue8.html#Gassee

Microsoft Rests in Antitrust Trial
Washington Post By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
With
little fanfare and an extended discussion of arcane programming
technologies, Microsoft Corp. rested its defense to the government?s
antitrust lawsuit yesterday. The conclusion came shortly after the
federal judge conducting the case provided a final burst of courtroom
fireworks by yelling at the company’s closing witness to stop arguing
with a government lawyer.

MS, Justice: “We”re Winning!?
Wired News by Declan McCullagh

Judge shouts at Microsoft witness
San Jose Mercury

Microsoft trial recesses with defense in disarray
San Jose Mercury

Will Bill Gates testify after break?
CNET News.com
John
Warden, the company’s lead litigator, acknowledged at a news conference
that there have been “suggestions” the government has “succeeded in
undermining our witnesses.” -(Damn John, that sounds a little too close to the truth! Did it hurt?)
“When
you don’t have the laws or the facts you try to try credibility and
that’s what I think has driven them to this strategy,” said Warden. -(Come on John, if you had the facts on your side credibility wouldn’t have been such a problem.)

Time to run up the white flag for MS?
ZDNN TECH NEWS

If Microsoft loses, what next?
ZDNN TECH NEWS

With a Microsoft victory looking bleak, what’s ahead?
PC WEEK

U.S. Lawyer in Antitrust Case Has Steel-Trap Memory
NY Times By STEVE LOHR
Where can I sign up for the David Boies fan club?

For Microsoft, Humbled May Not Mean Defeated
NY Times By STEVE LOHR
This
article presents an unbiased review of the trial. It’s a little
depressing for those of us who would like to think that the DOJ has
nailed Microsoft to the wall.

For Microsoft, Humbled May Not Mean Defeated
NY Times By JOEL BRINKLEY
This article has a bit more to say about Microsoft’s Java effort.

Judge loses his temper on last day before break
MercuryCenter BY DAVID L. WILSON
Boies
charged that Microsoft engaged in illegal tactics to distribute its
Internet Explorer Web browser at the expense of Netscape because IE had
special API’s — essentially “hooks” that applications can grab onto –
that could only be used in the Windows environment. He introduced an
e-mail from Microsoft executive Paul Maritzto Gates July 14, 1997,
which said that Microsoft wanted to increase IE’s market share as a way
of influencing the development of Java.

“Did you want to
increase market share of Internet Explorer because Internet Explorer
contains API extensions Microsoft wanted developers to write to,” Boies
asked. “No, that was not our primary goal,” Muglia said.

Boies
paused and, referring to the document, drily said, “You do understand
that that’s what it says here.” Muglia looked at the document and said,
“Let me go backand revise my previous answer.”

Microsoft trial judge loses patience
MSNBC News By Brock N. Meeks
Muglia
insisted that “fragmentation” was a positive thing, “in the sense that
we wanted to offer developers morechoice,” when considering writing
Java based programs.

Even If Microsoft Crashes, It May Not Get Burned
Business Week Online By Mike France
How
can that be? Primarily, because in spite of how dominant Microsoft
looked when the Justice Dept. was preparing its case against the
company last year, the software market is changing so rapidly that Bill
Gates’s position already appears weaker than it did just a few months
ago. If the trend continues, that means any justification for strong
remedies would lose force in the face of the company’s market
vulnerability.

It should baffle anyone who looks for
logical consequence, but Microsoft spokespersons reason that since
Microsoft created the fastest JVM, any modification of the language
definition itself that Microsoft proposes (read: unilaterally
implements) should increase speed.

The argument is invalid
anyway, but it is pleasing to see that others have improved while
Microsoft’s development remained stagnant. Of course, progress driven
by competition is just what one expects if a platform conforms to an
explicitly defined standard that many parties can implement.

See JavaWorld article “The Volano Report”: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-03-1999/jw-03-volanomark.html

Correction: Oops, its PC Magazine that Microsoft refers to, not PC Week. It was the only the latter publication that was openly selective in who it consulted when they needed support for java.

Mr.
Muglia’s testimony concerning Microsoft’s attitude towards java is
quite interesting as conflicts with both facts and testimonies of other
Microsoft witnesses.

For one fact, Mr. Muglia claims that Sun is
attempting to turn java into proprietary technology. I’ll happily
conceed that Sun is attracted by the idea of control, but the real
tendency is the opposite: we find Pricewaterhousecoopers overseeing the
standardization process and Sun is making the sources to java 2
available to all developers.

The conflict with the statements
is supposed to be hidden by adhering to a double standard system. When
Windows is at stake, consumers are supposed to benefit from a
“universal experience” and OEMs that do the actual selling of Windows
to consumers are not to change it in any way.

On the other hand,
when java is at stake the word “universal” is dropped and we are
treated on a claim that having a single language is a deplorable “one
size fits all” strategy.

Mr. Muglia claims that Sun is using its
control over java to push its own hardware. What Mr. Muglia fails to
mention is that java runs on far more hardware systems than does
Windows. Sun can use this to compete with its own hardware, but it
doesn’t derive any exclusivity with regard to hardware by its control
of the java standardization process. This stands in stark contrast to
Microsoft’s control over hardware makers that are essentially locked
into Microsoft’s market power. While there are alternative
implementations and hence vendors for java, there are not alternatives
for Microsoft when it concerns Windows. As a result Microsoft can use
its power to tell which hardware vendor is to live and which one is to
die. Sun can obtain no such power through java as it does’t control all
implementations of the language.

Mr. Muglia’s testimony is an
application of Microsoft’s standard approach to criticism: single out
the critic and turn him/her/it into a non-entity. Microsoft attempts to
create the game of divide and conquer by telling how restrictive Sun’s
control over the language is. Given that IBM, Oracle, Novell, Sun, and
even tiny companies like Tower and Transvirtual sell their own java
implementations while benefitting from the standardization process, it
is hard to believe that Microsoft attempt to undermine the
standardization is “pro-competitive”. Also it is hard to believe that
Microsoft’s opponent is merely Sun. With java’s low barriers of entry
(compare this to the barriers of entry to writing an implementation of
the “Windows standar”), Microsoft’s enemy here are many companies, both
large and small. The observation that several large companies have
embraced the java standard has been countered by Microsoft by their
“Gang of Four” conspiracy theory. Giving such a description to adhering
to a standard is the product of a sick and paranoic mind. Such are the
people that make up Microsoft.

Microsoft’s
witnesses and lawyers have worked hard to present Linux as a viable
threat to Microsoft’s desktop monopoly. However, even before the
verdict is in, Microsoft’s PR machine is already undermining their
statements under oath. This further reduces the credibility of
Microsoft’s witnesses.

Perhaps public statements such as Mr.
Muth’s will have little influence on the present trial, but if they
continue to be made, they will no doubt be taken into consideration on
appeal.

This will be an interesting track to follow.

The quote is from “Linux legions devoted to alternative”: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/19990228/news/current/linux.htx?source=htx/http2_mw&dist=srch

• How MS destabilised Netscape and Marimba
• The MS campaign to rein-in Intel multimedia development
• MS OEM boss shocked by Compaq-Netscape deal - allegedly
• MS exec wriggles over Hardcore Bill’s Java support (From the transcript the press stories about the judge “shouting” at Muglia looks like much ado about nothing much.)
• MS licences block Be’s bid for PC market by John Lettice
• How MS “publishes” Java code by burying it by John Lettice
• MS rebuttal exec deletes his email every two months
• Will MS roll out Gates to shore-up the defence?
• Did MS break QuickTime? It didn’t help fix it…

All articles were written by Graham Lea except where noted.

Hot Button: If I were Microsoft’s attorney
Mercury Center BY RICH GRAY
Rich
plays the devil’s advocate (almost literally) and presents the current
state of affairs from the defendants table. He uses an argument that
Microsoft has trotted out regularly, “since we failed to monopolize the
browser market how can anybody say we tried?” So why don’t we just get
everybody to switch to IE (at least for the next six to eight weeks).

Gov’t Clear Favorite in Microsoft Trial
New York Law Journal BY KAREN DONOVAN
This expert opinion seems to indicate that credibility does matter and they site a precedent to prove it.

Interview: Neukom, Boies state their case
Inter@ctive Week Online By Will Rodger

All Is Not Dark for Microsoft
the Industry Standard
Another news summary with links to 5 articles.

Justice’s Remedy May Hurt Consumers
TechWeb By Mary Mosquera
More handwringing over whether the cure will be worse than the disease.

Viewing Microsoft Through Different Windows
LA Times
A capsule summary of the witnesses and their testimony.

Issue of Harm to Consumers a Key Question
the Washington Post By Rajiv Chandrasekaran

Microsoft, U.S. Have Everything to Settle For
LA Times By JUBE SHIVER JR.

Vendors Complained About Microsoft’s Licenses
PC World by Patrick Thibodeau

Microsoft’s Last Stand
the Industry Standard By Elizabeth Wasserman
Speculation on who might be called as rebuttal witnesses.

Observers Taking Stock of Microsoft Trial
internetnews.com by Brian McWilliams
Microsoft
attorney Rick Rule puts on a brave face, Rich Gray feels that the OS
monopoly has been proven but not the browser monopoly.

Microsoft Trial Recesses With Defense In Disarray
Reuters

The Microsoft Mind-Set
the Washington Post By David Ignatius

Fireworks at Microsoft Trial Before Spring Break
the Industry Standard
Includes links to 9 other stories from various sources.

Microsoft Trial Reaches a New Crossroads
Cox News Service by ANDREW J. GLASS

ZDNN has done an interview of
Microsoft chief corporate counsel Bill Neukom. Since the Microsoft
legal team says that credibility does not matter, it comes as no
surprise that this interview is incredible. For instance, he says that:

“We do not believe the government has begun to show the evidence that is required to support … their case.”

This is the “Microspin” on what by every other account has been a compelling set of evidence shown by the government.

Neukom goes on to claim that “if any plausible benefit can be shown by integration of the Web browser with the operating system, the case goes away.” The trouble with that is Judge Jackson keeps asking “what is the benefit of integrating the Web browser with the operating system?”
and still seems unsatisfied by the rather underwhelming answers he has
gotten. How can Microsoft hope to convince the judge of the benefits of
integrated Web browsing if they insist that credibility is unimportant?

Neukom then says that

“We’re
in a very innovative business where companies reinvent themselves and
their product lines on a very rapid basis. The notion that the
government can observe this torrent of innovation in technology and
decide who ought to do what in terms of the design of their products I
think is foolish.”

I agree with that as far as to say that
companies and individuals should generally be free of outside
interference in how they conduct their business. But it is well known
that Microsoft regularly uses its muscle to tell other companies what
they should be offering and/or how to design their products. In
contrast, I have seen no indications that the government wants to
regulate the software industry beyond enforcement of current laws such
as anti-trust.

The text of the interview can be found here.

After
Gates’ appearance at the hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee I
came to this very conclusion. Gates might still be valuable to
Microsoft as a ceremonial salesman who has direct access to governments
and company CEOs due to the status derived from his wealth, but as his
deposit for the antitrust trial showed, he has mostly lost contact with
Microsoft’s business activities.

Unfortunately for Microsoft,
when Gates speaks about company in public he tends to contradict his
own claims and those made by the company’s spokespersons. Gates is so
completely driven by “I want” that he won’t even try to ascertain what
the facts are, or what he, or Microsoft’s employees, have claimed in
the past. With the demise of the taboo on Microsoft criticism this is
quite detrimental to Microsoft’s public standing.

For Microsoft
it would be best if Gates resigned. Not because he made mistakes during
the past year, but because he is incapable of not harming the company
in the future.

You can find the Inter@ctive Week Online editorial here:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_rc_display/0,3443,2217918,00.html

ZDNN’s John Dvorak posts a preview of Microsoft’s plans for the consumer version of the next generation of Windows:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2218828,00.html

Noteable
about this projected future Windows version is in how Microsoft wants
to return to themes of past failures such as the Bob program, which
featured cartoon characters which would suggest what the user should do
next on her computer, and the proprietary Microsoft Network. Consumers
did not want to be led by the nose in how they used their computers and
they have opted for the richer environment of the Internet instead of
that of a proprietary network service.^* “Freedom is slavery” would serve well as a slogan for these “new” mass-market offerings.

^*Just
as some food for thought, if Microsoft Network was dominant instead of
the Internet, would sites critical of Microsoft even be allowed on
their network? This article, entitled Is Microsoft Trampling on First Amendment Rights?, by Wendy Goldman Rohm indicates that sites critical of Microsoft would probably be censored.

Rumors have it that other
bidders for the domain were Compaq (Digital has a contingent of
long-time Linux supporters), HP, and, yes, even Microsoft. A more
legitimate suitor that didn’t get the domain was Red Hat software.
Linux.com will be run by an advisory board containing, among others,
the founders of slashdot.org, freshmeat.net and will be run by the
founder of themes.org. This looks like a good setup.

See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,33186,00.html

A must read.

See: “Microsoft defense falls flat”, http://www.procompetition.org/xp/p-headlines/i-current/a-920474547/p_article.view

and “Microsoft concessions during cross-examination”, http://www.procompetition.org/xp/p-headlines/i-current/a-920474854/p_article.view

http://www.zdii.com/industry_list.asp?mode=news&doc_id=ZE304222&pic=Y

despite
how poorly Microsoft is showing in its anti-trust trial, Wall Street
still strongly rates Microsoft as a “buy”. An anti-trust appeal is
expected and any remedies are a distant prospect.

Advocate Issues Windows Warning
Wired News by Chris Oakes

Those Nasty Little Lawsuits
Sm@rt Reseller By Mary Jo Foley

Microsoft-Bristol trial taking shape
CNET News.com By Dan Goodin

Senator to DOJ: Back Off
Wired News by Declan McCullagh
I emailed Senator Gorton and let him know that the DOJ is doing a fine job. (This story has a link to the Senator’s website.)

Foes and Allies Say Microsoft Has Stumbled in Case
ComputerNewsDaily By AARON ZITNER
I never tire of hearing just how poorly the Microsoft defense performed.

Intel insight
Boston Globe By Hiawatha Bray
He
misses the Microsoft trial too and casts an eye toward the Intel trial,
she doubts it can provide the same entertainment. (Thanks to Jerry
Clabaugh for correcting me on the question of Hiawatha Bray’s gender, I
assumed female and was wrong.)

Group Endorses Microsoft Breakup
LA Times By TED BRIDIS
It’s nice to see a real trade organization come down on the side of the angels.

Remedies in Microsoft case could shift balance of power
MSNBC By John R. Wilke
We can only hope.

Readers react to 49.7-day Windows glitch
CNET News.com By Stephanie Miles
Just to prove that Microsoft can still entertain us.

I
was wrong. Within weeks of Maritz’ testimony Linux has already been
bagatellised by Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and NT group product manager
Ed Muth.

Mr. Muth claims that Linux is not viable because it
lacks applications. Gosh, isn’t that what the government economist
claimed and what Microsoft’s lawyers disputed?

Furthermore, Mr.
Muth cannot believe that people are willing to work for free on an
operating system. There is no need to be ideological about this, as the
very existence of Linux today contradicts Mr. Muth’s expectation.

Also,
Mr. Muth is deeply confused about the word “integration”. He claims:
“People want integration. They want to take a bar chart from Excel and
put it in Word.” Clearly he doesn’t know the difference between
cooperation and integration. Here we must do justice to Mr. Maritz who
offered a deposit showing KOffice, an open-source office suite
presently in alpha-stage of development that already can do just that.
When saying “integration”, Mr. Muth seems to refer to sharing of data
formats and on step further of components such as diagrams that can be
dragged from one application to another. This is implemented
differently from the monolithic integration model that Microsoft claims
is necessary for having the full benefits of web browsing functionality.

Talking
about economies of scale, Mr. Muth first claims that there are no
comparative reports available due to the lack of applications.
Subsequently he dismisses Linux because it lacks a long-term
development road map. Well, I’d say that Linux does quite well by
responding to demand, rather than following the *long-term* roadmap of
Windows NT/2000 that Mr. Muth is responsible for.

As for
competition and monopoly, Mr. Muth finds that Microsoft is not strongly
represented in the $100.000 to $1 million server market, that
“competition exists in terms of business model and channel model”, and
that apparently for these reasons “an ordinary person would see
extraordinary competition”.

Eh, Ed, any comments on the
sub-$100.000 region and competition in terms of market - or if you want
“usage” - shares instead of “competition exists in terms of business
model and channel model”?

It would delight me to have Mr. Muth
explain all this in court. Although other Microsoft witnesses have
already admitted to similar statements reluctantly, Mr. Muth would make
a wonderful friendly witness for the government.

See: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,1014079,00.html

If Microsoft goes through so much
trouble for years, building up a gigantic database (think: all Windows
users globally) they’ll know what they are doing, right?

Wrong.
A Microsoft spokesperson is now telling the public that Microsoft’s
protracted data-gathering was actually the result of a technological
solution to tell computers apart on a network. Nonsense, of course, as
the ID is generated on the basis of an ethernet card number which is
already unique. The spokesperson is now telling the press that
Microsoft is willing to wipe the relevant databases with allegedly
inadvertently gathered data.

New York Times article re-published by Mercury Center:
http://www.mercurycenter.com/breaking/docs/041815.htm

CNet:
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,33413,00.html
(”Microsoft admits privacy problem, plans fix” - Hahaha)

LinuxToday editorial by Paul Ferris:
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/3826.html

See: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/remedies.shtml

Personally,
I have no faith at all in any form of breaking up Microsoft. The reason
why one would do such a thing is to artificially create competition in
the hope that other competitors would enter too. However, the resulting
situation would be one in which the same gang of executives would run
the industry that does so today. Could anyone who has studied the
tangled testimonies of Microsoft’s executives seriously doubt that any
law or agreement would keep the Microsoft parts from colluding to
perpetrate their present behavior, with the additional ratification
that a remedy against monopolistic abuse has already taken place?

I’ve toyed with the idea of trying Windows 98 Lite but
I’d have to buy Windows 98 to do it and I don’t see any benefit to be
derived from it. However, I do find it encouraging that an industry
pundit who has much of his career invested in Microsoft products is
willing to poke Bill Gates in the eye.

http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/livingst/livingst.htm

As was
well indicated by NT group manager Ed Muth’s point-by-point attack on
the testimony of his superior, senior vice-president Paul Maritz, the
very idea of contradiction and hence falsehood of their own statements
has become inconceivable.

Such an illogical attitude is not
defendable to the press and the results are accordingly. As Microsoft
is determined to put the blame on the press instead of mending their
ways, it is to be expected that the negative reports will continue for
some time.

See: http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/cov_08feature.html

In answer to an LA Times interview question “How do you view the Microsoft and Intel antitrust trials through the lens of your business?”, Dell CEO Michael Dell responds:

This
question of “Can a company improve its product?” is something that
ought to be important to a lot of people. If we were told that we had
to provide equal access to every company that wanted to provide DVD
drives, because we were the only company that could sell DVD drives to
Dell customers, because we bundled the DVD drive in with our computer,
I think you get into a problem of really limiting a company’s ability
to innovate. We ought to be able to decide that for our customers, and
obviously a customer could decide to buy our product or not.

To
me, this shows an amazing ignorance of anti-trust law and what the
Microsoft case is all about. After all, the case is only relevant to
companies such as Microsoft which have monopoly power. Perhaps Mr. Dell
is toeing the Microsoft party line to soften the later blow that “he was taken by surprise” by the demand for Linux and that Dell plans to start “offering Linux to single-party users very soon.”
He probably refers to an expansion of Dell’s current program to install
Linux on servers and, as such, this statement would not even help
Microsoft’s anti-trust defence.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/BUSINESS/t000021053.html

“Network Effects and Microsoft”
http://www.pretext.com/may98/columns/intview.htm
(Interview with economist Brian Arthur, a major influence on antitrust
chief Joel Klein and Netscape attorney Gary Reback.)

“Programs are Programs”
Annual Subscription Fees for Software
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ProgramsArePrograms.html

“The Bad Faith of Microsoft”
http://www.nyx.net/~lmulcahy/microsoft-bad-faith.html

“Who is really running Microsoft?” - NC World - November 1997
http://www.ncworldmag.com/ncworld/ncw-11-1997/ncw-11-straypackets.html
(Microsoft
product development is directed by competitive threats — including
antitrust action — rather than by attempts at technical improvement.)

Apparently, Reciprocal couldn’t get much
done itself, as it’s CEO Paul Brandowski calls Microsoft’s taking a
share in the company “great news for the entertainment industry”.

(Did
anyone notice how the structure of the industry has changed since the
“software industry changed overnight” since November-December? This is
what Microsoft senior vice-president William Neukom claimed at the
announcement of AOL’s buying of Netscape. It takes some discipline not
to roll over laughing when Microsoft or a Microsoft affiliate tells us
that their own latest action is “great news” for an entire industry.)

See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990308-000023.html

http://www.worth.com/articles/Z9903E01.html

Considering products on the basis of price and quality has been cast aside by the educational board of directors. “We want to make sure Microsoft is considered. They have, after all, been very generous.” and “If
you have a partner that has been helpful to you, and it’s a powerful
part of the state economy, do we need to look at them? Yes”

Thus
the directors don’t want a buyer-vendor relationship with Microsoft,
but rather one of “partnership”, which effectively means that they
don’t want to let the market intrude in their relationship.

It is clear that despite the recommendation the choice has already been made in favor of Microsoft:

Victor
Albino, executive director of the CIS, said there are some advantages
to working with Microsoft programs. In some uses, he said, they can be
cheaper to run. Windows NT also uses icons and other graphic
representations, while Unix relies on written commands that require
more training.

Given that Mr. Albino here re-iterates the
incorrect information about UNIX desktops that Microsoft spreads,
namely that these systems can be operated only in non-graphical mode,
it is clear that actual information on pros and cons of software is not
going to play a role in the decision. This is about trading favors.

See: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/coll_19990308.html

To that end, I have written up a summary of
Microsoft’s history in the software business from the late 1980’s to
the time of the ascendence of Netscape. This overview of events leading
up to the anti-trust trial can be found here:

http://main.billwatch.net/background/ms_hist.html

under the Billwatch “Background” section.

A memo from him to inform Microsoft employees on the status of the trial has been leaked.

One
of the rhetorical means Mr. Heiner repeatedly uses is the rhetorical
question: “But who can doubt the benefits for Microsoft and its
customers of developing innovative Internet client software? And who
can doubt the benefits of integrating such client software tightly into
Windows?” Note the special touch here of first asking a rhetorical
question that can without hesitation be answered affirmatively, and
then following it up by one that has complex economical repercussions
and is therefore very difficult to answer.

Other touches of Mr.
Heiner are that he repeatedly ignores one piece of information to place
another piece on a pedestal. For instance he speaks of a “unanimous
decision of the Court of Appeals”, happily focusing on the verdict
regarding Judge Jackson’s procedural error and ignoring that the
verdict regarding substantive issues was two-to-one.

Otherwise
there are the usual contortions of reason, such as the silly claim that
Microsoft’s exclusive contracts could not have impaired Netscape’s
distribution of its browser if Netscape distributed more browsers
during that period than before. (This is along the line of: “Friction
of air doesn’t impair the movement of a falling object as it keeps
accelerating.”)

If Microsoft doesn’t manage to shut up the
press, its employees will at some time feel cheated by the attempts of
internal information like Mr. Heiner’s memo to misrepresent reality to
them.

See: http://lists.essential.org/am-info/msg02280.html

Microsoft’s strategy was explained - without being
mentioned - by Paul Maritz in court, who claimed that Microsoft expects
cable companies to gain a significant level of control over software
distribution. No doubt, Microsoft is more than willing to assist them.

See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990309-000008.html

The
experts in Redmond are recommending that their customers stick with
Windows NT 4 for the time being and then upgrade to Windows 2000 as
soon as it becomes available. Following this advice would paint IT
professionals into a corner. The problem is that Windows NT 4 is not
Y2K compliant and Windows 2000 is not ready.

There’s no point in
my going into the details here since Cringely has laid it all out in a
very thorough and convincing fashion. His suggestion is that the
solution may be to turn to Novell or Apple before it’s too late.

Why
not consider Linux? One of his arguments against the Windows 2000
upgrade is that the hardware will have to be upgraded to accommodate
the new OS. That requirement will occur to the whole installation base
– assuming they all fall for it — simultaneously. A flood of demand
for new systems will create inevitable delays just when there is no
time to spare.

Linux is well known for requiring fewer resources and its current popularity should make it easy to get it in the front door.

It’s the right product at the right time.

See: I, Cringely

Senator Slade Gorton goes to bat for
his Redmond constituents by trying to stop a 15 per cent increase in US
Department of Justice funding. The funding increase was motivated by a
30% increase in merger filings needing approval but Gorton seems to
believe one particular anti-trust case he dislikes is enough to justify
denying additional funding. In his words, “they’ve demonised the most innovative, extraordinary world-changing engine for progress that this world may ever have seen.”

The full Register article is at http://www.theregister.co.uk/990312-000018.html Also, The Microsoft Hall of Innovations gives an idea of just what an “engine of innovation” Microsoft is.

A
Washington state senator is claiming that Microsoft is so important for
the future of the world, that it’s actions should not be measured by
the awkward machinations of the law. These arguments are not new. They
have been nicely worked out in Dostoievski’s “Crime and Punishment” and
the less savory interpretations of Nietzsche’s books. Defenders of
Microsoft are currently popularizing a system of values in which the
legal system is to make exceptions for those that are, or claim to be,
“special”. The least we can say about such a system is that is has
serious loopholes for abuse.

Another characteristic of the
claims of Microsoft’s defenders is the acceptance of teleological
reasoning. Microsoft software is dominant today, ergo, we could not
have reached the present state of development without Microsoft. They
tend to make it worse by claiming that if this dominance is challenged
by legal means in favor of a more competitive system, development will
be impaired. This makes clear clear that their faith in the success of
central planning by one organization is stronger than that in the
success of market competition.

Another ideological
characteristic of Microsoft’s defenders is their abandoning the
utilitarian system in favor of absolutism. Evaluating options by
detailing them and then counting and weighing their merits and faults
has been abandoned in favor of a system of rules that invalidates laws
in favor of power. A prime example of this line of thought is that any
form of government regulation is considered to lead to the end of -
well, as said, articulation of options is lacking - let’s say
civilization.

Aside from rejecting the laws of state,
Microsoft’s defenders also reject the laws of logic. Microsoft’s
spokespersons, among whom their chief trial attorney John Warden, have
explicitly stated that they consider the successful attempts to
undermine the testimonies of their witnesses as irrelevant. An
important part of this process has been showing how these witnesses
contradicted themselves or each other. For Microsoft then, a
contradiction is not a relevant problem for an argument. In other
words, they have accepted “A and not A” as additional logical axiom.
The result of the acceptance of this axiom is that for the people from
Redmond the very idea of truth and falsehood has lost its relevance.
Given the role of truth in determining meaning (convincing arguments
can be found in the works of Willard Van Orman Quine and Donald
Davidson), Redmond’s acceptance of the invalidation of truth has as a
consequence the loss of meaning of their words.

So much for
ideology. I was pleased to read the observation in a ComputerWorld
article that since the beginning of the lawsuit the competitive spirit
has been greatly boosted. Whereas the very idea of using non-Microsoft
software was strange to most people a year ago, it has now become
mainstream (the idea, not the action!). Thus the lawsuit seems to be
working already, even though no remedies have been enforced.

Moral
of the article: look at the pros and cons of government interference.
Merits are already apparent and that weakens the arguments of the
anti-regulation absolutists.

See: “The positive side of government suits”

See: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2225035,00.html

An
itemized analysis like this can be used to one’s advantage as a
checklist for press releases - by whatever party! - in the Microsoft
case.

(Let me encourage you to read the next two pages too: http://www.trufax.org/analysis/analy2.html and http://www.trufax.org/analysis/analy3.html)

Well,
there is something to read on the reorganization of Microsoft (which
has nothing whatsoever to do with the their monopoly or their use of
it):

“MS reorg - Gates burnt out, so spin him off?”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/990315-000002.html

It
is nice to see that someone shares my impression of Gates’ present role
of traveling salesman peddling his companies’ wares to governments.

A
core element of the defense is second guessing AOL’s strategy of not
replacing MSIE with Netscape’s browser, which Microsoft claims is the
result of a crooked plan by AOL to wait until the trial is over, in
order to place Microsoft in a bad light.

See:
“Microsoft’s Counterattack to Focus on Rivals’ Linkup” - Steve Lohr (NYT) http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/15plan.html

Since then, Gates hasn’t found
much time to spend in Redmond. He has been guest of many a government
and has peddled Windows to many a state - “chief salesman” is a more
appropriate function description.

Anyway, just after Maritz’s
courtroom praise for Linux, Gates ridiculed the OS on a national radio
broadcast in Denmark. He seems to have repeated the act in Japan. If
Linux’s “total cost of ownership” is so high that despite its low
(zero) initial price it doesn’t influence Microsoft’s pricing decisions
for Windows, it can’t be a competitive threat, can it?

See: http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?990315.enjapanlinux.htm

However, outside the
courtroom Microsoft seeks to push its warez and in Gates’ “Business @
the speed of thought” the very first of twelve rules for a successful
business is “Insist that communication flows through e-mail”. (The
funny ‘@’ sign is a delimiter of e-mail addresses and is pronounced
‘at’. Thus the title of the book is associated with this booming
internet thing, modern huh?)

Another great piece of advice is: “Convert every paper process to a digital process” (Can you imagine, a paperless office!)

Surely
I am going to buy this book. Reading it is going to be fun.
Incidentally, those interested rather in obtaining knowledge of the
roles e-mail can play in an organization rather than in finding quotes
to make nasty remarks about Microsoft, might be interested in the book
“Connections - new ways of working in the networked organization” by
Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler. I bought it in March 1994 - before
Microsoft even noticed the Internet - and it was published by MIT in
1991.

Here is a link to a ZDNet article outlining the twelve
step business plan Gates’ proposes in his (I wonder who wrote it this
time) new book: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2226425,00.html

This article from the New York Times News Service:
http://chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,1051,SAV-9903160200,00.html
reviews
the Microsoft anti-trust case from the perspective of the 19 states.
Apparently, since Microsoft is ignoring Judge Jackson’s advice and not
trying to negotiate a settlement, the discussion centers on remedies.
Fines are a possibility, but how would an appropriate fine be computed?
My favourite remedy, opening the Windows source code to 3rd parties to
allow for competition in the PC operating system market, is also a
possibility. After all, Intel licences its x86 processor specifications
and now there is thriving competition in the market for x86-compatible
processors.

Update: According to this account from The Register,
the fines contemplated by the states in the anti-trust suit could
accrue for each sale of Windows and thus run into billions of dollars!

Tipping the antitrust scales
How the right helped make the federal courts safe for Microsoft.
Salon BY ANDREW LEONARD
Here’s
an interesting article from Salon on some well funded efforts to
influence the judiciary against antitrust enforcement. It sounds to me
like they’re spending a lot of money to preach to the choir, but they
do provide some rational sounding arguments to judges that support
their philosophy.

Gates May Contradict Trial in Book
the Las Vegas Sun
More
evidence that Bill Gate?s latest book is a must read for Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson. From the book: “The sales results are in digital
form, so anytime I want to I can look by country, by product, exactly
how sales compare to budget, how they compare to other groups,” –
Where are the little scraps of paper? Then there’s Bill’s sermon on the
importance of email to his “hands on” management style.

It’s very
thoughtful of Bill to provide all this ammunition to the prosecution
during the trial’s hiatus. It’s as if he were some twisted killer in a
psychodrama who intentionally leaves a trail of clues because, deep
down inside, he wants to get caught.

Advice to Gates: Break up Microsoft or quit
San Jose Mercury BY DAN GILLMOR
Another voice in that growing chorus that believes Bill Gates should consider retirement.

Today’s Quiz
The Andover News Network by Jack Bryar
This
article takes a long look at “global unique identifiers” in Microsoft’s
OS and applications, Y2K problems and wide spread piracy in Asia. He
brings up a number of interesting points. This one I found of
particular interst: 80% of the copies of Microsoft products in China
are counterfeit. This includes most of the software run by China’s
government and military and it’s not Y2K complient. I bet the CIA
wishes they could take credit for this, it’s an act of sabotage of
truly monumental proportions. I wonder how this will play out, maybe
China will nuke Redmond in retaliation!

Although the press
attention during the trial may have received maximum impact, it is
closer study and comparison of the many claims that Microsoft made that
will eat away the foundations of the company’s goodwill.

(ruthlessly modified after initial posting)

James
Grimaldi set out reading Gates’ deposit and found no signs of the
out-of-context quoting that Microsoft’s press statements have alleged.
He attempts to sum up the main points of the deposit without lingering
on the items that earlier caught the attention of the press. See: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/gate_19990316.html

BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF BOUGHT

TIME magazine [March 22, 1999] features Bill Gates on its cover this week.

The
world’s richest man gives the world 12 steps for the world’s businesses
to survive in a new digital world — a sneak peek from his forthcoming
book, BUSINESS @ THE SPEED OF THOUGHT.

But in all of the
excitement, TIME editors fail to point out that the book’s publisher,
WARNER BOOKS, is owned by the same parent company, TIME WARNER, that
owns TIME magazine!

Corporate synergy turned sinergy?

Nowhere
in the editorial copy of the nation’s most trusted news weekly is the
reader informed that this week’s cover story is an active promotion for
a company product, the Bill Gates book, set to be released next week.

“This is not news, this is an infocommerical!” declared a senior editor for a competing weekly.

Have TIME editors thrown journalistic integrity out the window by shamelessly hyping a TIME WARNER product for sales?

“We
do books all of the time, like Tom Wolfe’s book last year,” a TIME
magazine editor explained. “We report news. Bill Gates is news. Drudge,
if you had a book, we would consider writing about it.”

Case
closed. Flattery will get you everywhere. The Gates book looks
impressive and is a very important literary work that deserves every
cover!

  (URL: http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm)

In the antitrust trial, Microsoft has
held that the price of Windows makes up upto 5% of the price of a
“medium level” computer system. At my local dealer I found I could get
a reduction of 13% of the price when refusing to accept Windows. This
reduction amounted to about $95.

Given that Koreans have on
average less money to spend then, say, I have, I expect them to buy
even cheaper hardware, possibly dropping extras like sounds cards and
speakers that in businesses will only scare away your customers.

Thus
it seems feasible to me that the price of PCs in Korea is some $500. On
the other hand, that of Windows is some $200. That looks like 28% of
the cost of a system with hard- and software to me (containing a
browser as its only application).

If there was choice in the
market of operating systems, many Koreans would no doubt go for a less
well branded OS. However, they pretty much have no choice as was
pointed out by the economist testifying for Microsoft in the antitrust
trial and by Microsoft’s senior vice-president for OEM sales. I won’t
defend the wide-spread piracy practice in Korean, but as a reaction to
monopolistic pricing it is quite understandable.

Korean PC
makers seem to have turned against Microsoft and the Korean FTC is
launching an investigation. Facing angry PC makers must be a new
experience for Microsoft.

FSC probing Microsoft dispute
Korea Times

FTC begins probe into Microsoft’s alleged unfair trading practices; Campaign against software giant spreading among PC vendors
Korea Herald

Last
week there was some hoopla about Microsoft considering to provide
Office for Linux. As I expected, they don’t. Their argument is the
usual one that doesn’t cut it in this era when companies aim to find
customers for their products instead of sitting on their fat asses
until somebody asks them provide it: “customers haven’t asked for it”.
Did they ask for the integrated browser?

Anyway, I consider it a
breakthrough that Microsoft has at least set up an e-mail address where
you can ask about Linux: linuxq@microsoft.com.

Let’s make sure Microsoft gets the Word on Linux
The Boston Globe by Simson Garfinkel

The trade press
has been covering today’s release of Internet Explorer v. 5. It is
interesting to note that Microsoft seems proud of how much flexibility
they give the consumer in how much functionality is installed. Mike
Nichols, Microsoft’s product manager for the Windows operating system
says “We’re taking things in a different direction [than
Netscape]. We think integration with other applications is really
powerful, but that you need to do in way that customers have choice.”

Did I hear “choice”?
It sounds good, but Microsoft’s idea of choice does not extend to a
browser-less Windows or a Windows which could use another browser such
as Netscape or Opera in place of Internet Explorer. It reminds me of
Henry Ford back in the days of the Model T: “You can have any colour
you want as long as it’s black.”

The faith in Microsoft’s sincerity was
undermined by its successful attempt to drive the W3C to adopt CSS as a
standard, something that Microsoft secretly had a patent pending on.

The
introduction of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 5.0 further undermines
faith in Microsoft’s willingness to adhere to the standards, even to
those it helped setting itself. Some elements are missing while others
not belonging to the standard are added.

It is one thing that
Microsoft is clearly playing the game of once more polluting standards
to undermine commoditization of products and therewith raise barriers
to entry and drive up prices (nothing illegal there if you don’t use a
monopoly to do this, oops, Microsoft does by bundling MSIE 5.0 with
Windows). It is something else that Microsoft has deceived the public
about their intentions. They made it seem that they would adhere to
standards this time, and once again it turns out that they don’t.

W3C [False, should be “WSP”!] disappointed with IE 5.0
Newsbytes by Matt Hines
(The article confuses the W3C, that actually defines standards and tests adherence, and the Web Standards Project,
an organization that urges web software makers to adhere to W3C
standards. It is the latter organization that is actually speaking up.)

Update:Better check out the WSP press release instead of Newsbytes’ rehash referred to above: http://www.webstandards.org/ie5.txt

This article
published in the German c’t magazine indicates that Microsoft has put
significant resources (37 developers) into a Linux port of Office. Of
course, this may only be Microsoft trying to cover all bases and the
project may turn out like the Office port to Java and never see the
light of day. For non-German readers, try out the Babelfish translation here.

Despite the recess of the anti-trust trial, all is not quiet on that front. This New York Daily News article
gives a further account of how Bill Gates’ latest book “Business @ the
Speed of Thought” contradicts the sworn testimony of Microsoft’s
economic witness.

Last year’s news of AOL buying out Netscape
created quite a stir with Microsoft claiming vindication in its
assertion that rapid changes in the marketplace can willy-nilly create
competition to their software dominance. Since the Netscape acquisition
has passed regulatory muster and has been approved by Netscape’s
shareholders, Microsoft is certain to try renewing their claim of
vulernability in the marketplace when the trial reconvenes for the
rebuttal phase. This commentary by ZDNN’s Connie Guglielmo gives a clear explanation for why Microsoft’s claim is not germane to the present anti-trust case.

The
latest event on this front is Gates’ claim that Linux is not a threat
to NT (he doesn’t even bother to mention Linux with regard to the
desktop) because it provides only the equivalent of an old core of NT
that makes up some 4 percent of the present monolithic mass - which,
incidentally, is now planned to be released at October 6th 1999.

Aside
from mentioning Gates’ daunting 4 percent claim, the article below is
also interesting because it does a conscious effort to define a
methodology of interpretation that is effective for relating the words
of Bill Gates to reality - something for which an interpretation
according to the dictionary meaning of the words of the English
language isn’t all that helpful.

Learning to read Bill Gates
ComputerWorld Today by Don Tennant

TrustE isn’t all
that happy as it would rather not use its privacy watchdog role against
a big sponsor like Microsoft. Expect them to be as docile as the trade
press that fears to loose Microsoft advertising dollars, but to say
something to keep up appearances.

Junkbusters isn’t happy because they seem to have an interest in protecting privacy:

[Junkbusters’
president] Catlett also criticized Microsoft, its MSN division, and
other electronic commerce sites for failing to provide the fundamental
privacy protections that consumers need. He said that
industry-sponsored “seals of approval” such as TRUSTe and BBBOnline do
not guarantee an adequate standard of privacy.

Junkbuster’s GUID news item
link

Junkbusters: Microsoft and the GUID
link

Junkbuster’s account of Microsoft’s past record
link

(Reading
the above is most effective after reading Microsoft’s “dear valued
customer” letters in which Microsoft claims to be playing a leading
role in online privacy - whatever that may be; it doesn’t seem to be
related to complying with privacy laws. In 1995 Microsoft claimed to
aim at compliance with EU privacy laws, even for non-Europeans.
Apparently, things worked out differently.)

The Register isn’t happy, or they wouldn’t mention a something as accusatory as:

The
personal data sent to Redmond by the Windows 98 registration wizard is
of course being exported, if it’s being sent from outside the US. And
if it’s being sent from Europe, Microsoft may well be in breach of
European privacy legislation.

MS threatened by Euro privacy probe
The Register by Mike Magee

And of course, Microsoft
isn’t happy as they have been found out. Windows Marketing Director
Yusuf Mehdi had to write a couple of letters to save appearances. In
case you’ve forgotten, Yusuf Mehdi is the guy who talked on the Allchin
video as if there was only computer at stake, where there really was a
mise-en-scene of several computers from which the recordings were cut
and spliced as if only one was present. Thus, it has already been
established that Mr. Mehdi is willing to lie in the service of his
company.

Dear valued customer
letter v1 by Yusuf Mehdi, Director of Windows Marketing

Dear valued customer (updated version)
letter v2 by Yusuf Mehdi, Director of Windows Marketing

Note
that an important part of Mr. Mehdi’s defense consists of
“association”. Microsoft supports TrustE and BBBline and helps define
privacy standards. This defense is invalid, of course, as we are not
talking about definitions and policies but about actual actions and
there Microsoft falls short. Note the parallel with Microsoft’s
dealings with W3C: they take part in the standardization process, but
they don’t actually adopt the standards in their products as the recent
release of MSIE 5 demonstrated.

According to this ZDNN article,
Microsoft has curtailed its use of e-mail in favour of more traditional
forms of communication such as meetings or phone calls. This is
interesting in light of the release of Gates’ “Business @ the Speed of
Thought” book telling businesses they can be more efficient through
increased use of e-mail. Additionally, Microsoft President Steve
Ballmer claims that all if its dealings with competitors have been
“lawful and appropriate business discussions” and Chairman Gates says
he has never written an e-mail that he would be ashamed to be made
public. If so, then it would seem Microsoft has nothing to fear by
continuing the prolific use of e-mail in the conduct of its business.
Actions speak louder than words.

So when Judge Jackson asks about how the
“integration” of IE with Windows 98 benefits consumers, Microsoft can
respond in all honesty that it enhances that “Windows experience”.
Cut Internet Explorer from Windows 98 with your own bare hands
InfoWorld

Microsoft responds to the easy removal of IE from Windows 98
InfoWorld

Readers report their results in removing IE from Windows 98
InfoWorld

Here
are a couple of columns by Nicholas Petreley on the Global User ID that
has been a part of the Windows platform and Microsoft’s applications
for a few years but is just now getting a lot of exposure. I suppose
that it’s been there but no one paid much attention till the word got
out that you couldn’t really turn if off.According to Nicholas it’s
much worse than that.

Wear clean underwear, because you never know when Microsoft is looking
InfoWorld

Got your number: Think you can beat Microsoft? You’d better think again
InfoWorld

Here’s a little excerpt from the current PC Week Spencer F. Katt column:
Microsoft drops bomb on Linux-loving minions–er, partners
PC Week - Spencer F. Katt
Microsoft
is still lobbing some missiles on its businesspartners, antitrust trial
be damned. At Intel’s Pentium III Xeon launch last week, a group of
vendors had plannedto demonstrate the performance of Pentium
IIIXeon-equipped systems from Gateway and Micron running Oracle8–and
Red Hat Linux. When Microsoft heard that two of its primary OEMs were
planning to run Linux in public, the Redmondians dusted off their
thumbscrews and convinced Gateway and Micron to pull out of the demo
unless Windows NT took the place of Linux. Guess which operating system
won out?

As I found out today, the other was filed by Gravity, Inc., a company specializing in document management services.

Here are the first two paragraphs from their press release:

Forth
Worth, TX, February 16, 1999. Today, Gravity, Inc. filed an antitrust
lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in the same United States Court
hearing the Federal and State allegations against Microsoft. This is
the first Federal classaction suit brought to secure the damages for
those who have paid monopoly prices for Microsoft software. The conduct
in question, in part, forms the basis of the United States Department
of Justice’s and the State Attorneys’ General claims currently being
litigated in the Washington, D.C. Federal Court.

Gravity’s
lawsuit also seeks to demonstrate how the largest sellers of personal
computers in the United States - Dell Computer Corporation, Compaq
Computer Corporation, and Packard Bell NEC, Inc - have cooperated with
Microsoft, as some of Microsoft’s largest software distributors, to
profit from its anti-competitive scheme. This conspiracy is alleged to
have suppressed Microsoft’s competition for the sale of operating
system software, as well as word processing and spreadsheet software
applications.

The company’s website contains
Adobe PDF encoded (yeah, negative connotation) copies of their press
release and of the legal complaint.

See: http://www.gravitynet.com/
(Follow the “news” link.)

As explained by Bill Gates in “The Road
Ahead”, Microsoft has long made sure that every computer shipping comes
with a Microsoft operating system. Retail versions of the operating
system, which are sold to consumers without any exclusive agreements
being attached are highl