In hindsight, the finding of fact in the Microsoft antitrust case was too obvious. What's next is the real surprise.
Playing by the Rules
In hindsight, the finding of fact in the Microsoft antitrust case was too obvious. What's next is the real surprise.
- By Em C. Pea
- February 01, 2000
4 p.m.: It's an unusually
slow Friday afternoon in techie land, sorta like the calm
before the storm, sans the anxiety of seeing swirling
clouds approach from the distant horizon. So, being the
gadget freak I am, I proceed to log all my year 2000 hair
coloring appointments, ginger rubs, and that big Windows
2000 rollout into my nifty new Palm VII, when my pearl
bracelet accidentally raises the antenna, which automatically
dials and gets a Bloomberg financial Web clipping on the
Microsoft antitrust case.
Well, duh! For those of you waiting for Auntie's take
on Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact in
the Microsoft case, the pronouncement that Microsoft is
a monopoly can hardly be news to anyone who's ever been
within 500 miles of a CompUSA.
Even though we MCPs make our living off Microsoft products,
it's hard to deny this outcome, no? Microsoft plays hardball,
and when you throw high and inside for long enough (Fabio's
been teaching me about baseball--isn't he sweet?), eventually
the umpire's going to give you a warning, and then you'll
get tossed from the game. The warning is much like the
consent decree of several years ago. Right now, it seems
like Jackson's ready to boot Bill's gang out of the stadium.
And the lawsuits keep piling up.
It's hard to feel outraged. Anyone with a functioning
cerebral cortex has to groan whenever Microsoft trots
out the old "we're victims of our own success"
spin. For all that Redmond's products are hellishly complex,
its attempts at public relations, lobbying, and doublespeak
have been as slick as a poorly run campaign for high school
class president.
Look, you and I know that any large and powerful corporation
will do all it can to crush competitors (if you believe
otherwise, I have a bridge you may be interested in).
And I'm close to tossing my cookies as I see some of the
way-down-the-evolutionary-scale CEOs of Microsoft's competition
crowing over the Jackson ruling. You know, I know, and
even Our Boy Bill knows that Microsoft has crossed over--too
many times for the Feds to ignore-- that fuzzy line that
delineates fair business practices, even if it hadn't
been egged on by competitors with their own none-too-noble
agendas.
Don't just take my word for it; read the decision online
at www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm.
Now, my editor has confirmed that you'll be reading this
in the middle of January, which means we'll have to wait
a few more weeks or months before Jackson decides on what
he considers to be an appropriate remedy. The findings
of fact don't read like he's going to impose a weak slap
on the wrist. We all can have endless fun guessing, and
technology pundits will be in full punditry, but all we
can do is wait and see. Microsoft's making the predictable
noises about how it would like to settle the matter before
the next ruling, and the Justice Department appears willing
to listen, but it seems clear that Bill's going to have
to put something substantial on the table. Otherwise this
will not go away. As we write this, Microsoft is making
some management moves that might point to an anticipated
break up, but who knows?
Gotta go. Fabio's got the catcher's mask on.
About the Author
Em C. Pea, MCP, is a technology consultant, writer and now budding nanotechnologist who you can expect to turn up somewhere writing about technology once again.