  | |
. | |
A L S O__T O D A Y
Mr. Gates, meet Mr. Antitrust Who owns the desktop? - - - - - - - - - - T A B L E__T A L K The e-book: Would it work? Would you read it? Join the discussion in the Digital Culture area of Table Talk - - - - - - - - - - R E C E N T L Y The Internet strikes back Trashing the flamers The 21st Challenge No. 9 Let's Get This Straight Post no shills - - - - - - - - - - BROWSE THE - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
The browser war goes thermonuclear
BY SCOTT ROSENBERG | Now that the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general have filed broad new antitrust actions against Microsoft, keeping straight what the fight is (and isn't) about is going to get very difficult, very fast. Each side has an interest in pressing its arguments to extremes, even if that muddles the issues. The first thing to keep in mind as you follow the coverage is that this is not a dispute over whether Microsoft is a monopoly. Everyone under the sun, except Microsoft itself, seems to accept that the company's 90 percent share of the market for personal computer operating systems makes it a de facto monopoly. But under the Sherman Act, the 1890 statute under which the complaints against Microsoft have been filed, monopolies in themselves aren't illegal. What's forbidden is for a company to use a monopoly in one area to try to secure a monopoly in a new and distinct market. That's precisely what the government is now charging Microsoft with doing in its battle with Netscape to control the market for Web browsers. In quotation after quotation from internal memos cited in the Department of Justice filings, Microsoft officials declare that their best and possibly only hope of winning against Netscape was to "leverage" their control of the Windows operating system to favor their own browser product, Internet Explorer. Pursuing such "leveraging," Microsoft decided to "integrate" Explorer into Windows itself -- a process barely begun in Windows 95 but fully under way in the forthcoming Windows 98. Microsoft argues that wrapping the browser into Windows is simply an "innovation" to benefit consumers and give them more choices. The government's suit paints the move as a pure business strategy to defeat Netscape: Most PC buyers have little choice but to purchase Windows, and if buying Windows means receiving Explorer as well, how can Netscape compete? Bill Gates says, "Interfering with the freedom to innovate through lawsuits like these will limit -- not expand -- choice." Clearly, Gates and the government define "innovation" and "choice" in starkly different ways. Where do the interests of the public lie? The typical computer consumer has not been injured in the browser wars. The intense competition between Netscape and Microsoft meant that each company furiously developed and (sometimes) improved its browser. Microsoft's strategy of giving Explorer away effectively prevented Netscape from charging, and we all wound up with free browsers. So far, so good. If this were only about browsers, no one would be getting terribly excited about these antitrust suits. In fact, what's at stake is whether Microsoft retains the ability to use the power of its Windows monopoly to "leverage" itself into the many other Internet-related businesses that are due to boom over the next decade. Today, Microsoft is integrating the browser; tomorrow, will Microsoft "integrate" MSNBC, Carpoint, Expedia and Sidewalk? Windows 98 already includes a TV guide tied to Microsoft's WebTV product and a "channel bar" that points users to Web sites preselected by Microsoft. Sooner or later, all this "integration" stops being just about convenience and starts giving Microsoft prodigious power to shape the entire landscape of Net-based information and commerce. - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
