Would a monopolistic power recognize that indeed it is one? In most cases, the answer would be: No! Companies engage in fierce competition to further define the boundaries of their market share and gain more grounds in user space. Indeed, it's a battle and survival of the fittest; in the computer industry, survival goes to those who are the most innovative. It takes an external observer to note the actual existence of a monopoly, and based on previous similar cases, it definitely takes a long time to prove it. IBM's Antitrust case, for example, took a total of 13 years until it was dropped in 1982. For Microsoft, however, the path to judicial conclusions took a faster track as it lasted less than 2 years. The lawsuit was filed in May 1998 and a verdict was reached on April 3, 2000.
Last Friday, the government filed its proposed remedy: break up Microsoft Corp. into 2 companies. The Windows operating system will constitute one company, while the other will include all the rest of Microsoft. This, according to their proposal, will achieve separation between Windows and the Microsoft Internet browser. May 10th is the deadline set by Judge Penifield for Microsoft to file its response, with a court hearing scheduled for May 24th at which the judge is expected to announce the decision. Microsoft has already announced that it will appeal the expected ruling. Judge Penifield, expecting an appeal from Microsoft, desires to speed up the appeal process by bypassing the appeal courts and moving directly to the Supreme Court before year's end.
From the government side, there were only a couple of possible options from which a remedy could be devised:
A Breakup of the Company
Originally, it was expected that the proposal would request a break up resulting in 3 companies:
Operating Systems (Windows)
Applications (Office, etc.)
Internet Content (Internet Explorer, MSN,
etc.)
However, it is apparent that the government's goal was to achieve a separation between Windows and Internet Explorer, and so they did. Microsoft's applications such as Office, although an integral part of Microsoft's power, was not the driving force behind the lawsuit.
Enforcing Open Source Standards Upon Microsoft
Under this remedy, Microsoft would be required to open up the source code for their Windows operating system and other applications. While some open source advocates prefer this remedy over breaking up the company, it was not considered. The reasons, in my own justification, could be due to the fact that open source corporate presence has only taken place recently. Indeed, the technological success of the open source movement is unquestionable as there are numerous success stories. But, whether open source works as a viable business model or not remains uncertain. In that sense, the government should be hesitant to force an ideological change on Microsoft which may kill any future company plans. Remember that the goal of this antitrust lawsuit is not to harm Microsoft, but to make certain that consumers are not harmed.
Enforcing Fair Pricing
This was another option for a possible remedy, by which Microsoft would be barred from giving price discounts for companies that only use its products. This option does not provide a practical solution for separating Windows from Internet Explorer.
Multi-Smaller Microsoft
I am personally glad that this option was not chosen. Having multiple competing smaller Microsofts may eventually introduce several incompatible versions of Windows. A harmful remedy for consumers, needless to say.
One may ask: What has gotten Microsoft in this mess anyway? Simply, fierce competition that caused the boundaries between the Windows operating system and Windows applications to fade away. Instead of allowing the user to choose which Internet browser to use, he/she was forced in some situations to use only one browser, that is Internet Explorer. A very simple example, if you try to update your Windows operating system through the Microsoft update web site, you will only be able to get through by using Internet Explorer. You don't have it? Then you will not be able to update Windows. In addition, Microsoft violated the US antitrust law by offering its browser for free (below cost of course) to drive out competition.
Finally, I would like to close this article by commenting on a statement given by Microsoft's spokesman Jim Cullinan, in which he uses McDonald's as an example, in his reflections about the case. "This is like telling McDonald's that it can only sell burgers, not fries, and that it has to give away the recipe for its secret sauce. We are confident that the appeals court will support Microsoft's position."
I find this to be a funny example and a misleading one as well. The real example, if you will, is a car manufacturer that not only manufactures the cars, but paves the roads too and in a very special way so that only their cars can use them!
For comments or questions about this article, send e-mail to the writer: wajdi@acm.org
