Navigation Salon Salon Technology email print
Arts & Entertainment
Books
Comics
Health & Body
Media
Mothers Who Think
News
People
Politics2000
.Technology
- Free Software Project
Travel & Food
_______
Columnists

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

View From the Top

Full list of profiles

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Also Today

For a full list of today's Salon Technology stories, go to the Technology home page.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon


  
Advanced Search  |  Help

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Salon Columnists
Follow these links for the most recent column by:
Susie Bright
Robert Burton, M.D.
Joe Conason
Sean Elder
David Horowitz
Garrison Keillor
Anne Lamott
Greil Marcus
Joyce Millman
Camille Paglia
Amy Reiter
Mary Roach
Scott Rosenberg
Ruth Shalit
Michael Sragow
Virginia Vitzthum
Sarah Vowell
Cintra Wilson
Burt Wolf

+ Columnists' schedule

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Technology

Technology: View from the top
On the record
RIAA chief Hilary Rosen defends the music industry's recent litigation against Napster and MP3.com.

By Janelle Brown
[05/01/00]


Is it time to buy Microsoft?
Wall Street has pummeled Bill Gates' stock price -- and the reasons are more psychological than financial.

By Steve Bodow
[04/28/00]


After the fall
Executives at Women.com, VA Linux, Productopia and others forge a path into post-market correction Silicon Valley.

By Janelle Brown, Damien Cave and Andrew Leonard
[04/28/00]


Sissyfighter
Meet Eric Zimmerman, the brains behind the Net's nastiest little game.

By Russ Spencer
[04/27/00]

Books
Zen and the art of start-ups
A Silicon Valley rebel gets spiritual about making money in "The Monk and the Riddle."

By Katharine Mieszkowski
[04/26/00]

Complete archives for Technology

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Technology
by e-mail
Sign up here to receive our weekly e-mail newsletter listing recent and upcoming articles and events in Technology.

 
Unsubscribe

- - - - - - - - - - - -




Sayings of Chairman Bill | page 1, 2

Because there are a million and one things wrong with what the Justice Department and its allied states have asked for. Ostensibly the government has chosen to ask for a breakup of Microsoft because plain old regulation or government oversight of the company -- a "conduct remedy" as opposed to a "structural remedy" -- is considered unworkable. Yet, fearful that Microsoft can delay any breakup plan, the Justice proposal also asks for a lengthy laundry list of interim rules for Microsoft to operate under that look very much like "conduct remedies." Since everyone in charge of Microsoft firmly maintains that they have never done anything wrong, the prospects for enforcing such rules look grim -- a Vietnam-like legal quagmire into which whole battalions of lawyers and engineers would be likely to disappear without a trace.

And even if somehow the division of Microsoft into two new companies, a Windows firm and an applications firm, could be made to happen so quickly as to render interim conduct remedies irrelevant, it's hard to see how that division would make a huge amount of difference in today's Internet-driven marketplace. Both Office and Windows are profitable but mature businesses. Either of them could be a launching pad for new, Internet-based enterprises. If Microsoft were broken up, then whichever company Gates chose to stick with would doubtless take the lead.

As it is, splitting Office from Windows doesn't guarantee any particular new competition in the software industry. Justice and its backers keep suggesting that an unfettered new Office company would develop a version of Office for Linux, instantly giving that server-oriented operating system a whole new legitimacy on the desktop. But is there any evidence that Linux users want Office? I think what they want is Office compatibility: If they could be assured that their favorite Linux applications could read Word and Excel files they probably would have no use for Word and Excel themselves. In other words, what Linux and other rival operating systems really need isn't the Office programs, but access to information about Office, like file formats, that Microsoft currently holds close to its chest.

All of which suggests that the government has overlooked the one remedy that could genuinely transform the software marketplace: a requirement that Microsoft publish the source code to its key products, Windows and Office. In one stroke, this would lay bare all APIs, documented or not, and create a level field for all competitors to build new products upon -- establishing the groundwork for a flourishing, competitive new software ecosystem.

Microsoft would scream bloody murder, but it is doing so already. On Friday Gates declared that the Justice plan "takes away any incentive for us to do new work by saying that the intellectual property has to be given away to other companies." (This is the quote as reported by the media; on the Microsoft press site the phrase "our work, our way" is substituted for "new work.") Like his other statements, this one is full of bizarre ambiguities: Is he describing the breakup plan itself here, or somehow interpreting the interim conduct remedies as a requirement to give away "intellectual property"? But the only "intellectual property" the conduct remedies mention are the APIs that Microsoft has always insisted it already makes fully public!

In any case, asking Microsoft to give away intellectual property is no more or less wrong than any other kind of material fine a company might be charged once it is found to have broken the law. And surely Gates has interpreted the situation upside down: If Microsoft were required to "give away" the information at the heart of its existing monopoly, the company would suddenly have an urgent and overwhelming incentive to "do new work" in order to stay afloat.

It would still start with enormous advantages, including more cash than Croesus, a powerful brand name, a vast corps of developers and a corporate leadership that defers to no one in its esteem for its own capabilities. The one thing it would give up is any advantage based on synergistic relationships with its own monopoly products. Wasn't that what the antitrust trial was all about in the first place?
salon.com | May 1, 2000

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Scott Rosenberg is Salon's managing editor. For more columns by Rosenberg, visit his column archive.

Sound off
Send us a Letter to the Editor

Send e-mail to Scott Rosenberg

Related Salon stories
What is to be done about Microsoft? Break it up? Open it up? Nationalize it? As the trial grinds on, the government smells victory and eyes remedies.
By Scott Rosenberg 06/02/99

All about Microsoft A complete guide to Salon Technology's coverage of Microsoft, Bill Gates and the antitrust trial.
05/01/00

Microsplit Justice outlines its plan for two post-Microsoft companies: Office with no Windows, Windows with no Office -- and only one of them gets Gates.
By Katharine Mieszkowski 04/29/00

Software outlaw roams the streets! So Microsoft broke the law. But while the judges argue among themselves, the company remains free to stalk new markets.
By Scott Rosenberg 04/03/00

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Print this story  Get a printer-friendly version

Email this story  E-mail a friend about this article

Backflip This Story  Backflip this article to find it again

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon


  
Advanced Search  |  Help



Salon | Search | Archives | Contact Us | Table Talk | Ad Info

Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus

Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.