From...
Reaction to Microsoft suit: precedent causes concern
May 19, 1998
Web posted at: 3:52 PM EDT
by Ed Scannell, Bob Trott and Paul Krill
The
safe and most common reaction was "no comment," but the filing of antitrust
litigation against Microsoft has even the company's detractors worried
that a potentially disruptive precedent has been set.
"An [antitrust suit] is a dangerous precedent in that it opens the
door to any software company that has a product competitive with any
included accessory within Windows," said Mike Drips, an Overland Park,
Kan.-based consultant for several Fortune 500 companies. "It gives them
an excuse to complain about being coat-tailed into the box."
While saying that some sort of oversight of Microsoft likely is necessary,
some observers criticized that the government investigators, particularly
state officials, should stick to important issues and stay away from
areas that appear to be meddling in software design -- a key defense
of Microsoft's.
"It does a very hard thing: it makes Microsoft a sympathetic character,"
said Dwight Davis, a Kirkland, Wash.-based analyst at Summit Strategies.
Still, the power of Microsoft clearly has been a force to be reckoned
with, and that keeps some observers keen on some kind of regulation.
"The software industry is one our more vibrant industries and it is
great to see strong entrepreneurs. But where you get concerned is when
one gets too big for his britches and had wide spread influence over
the market. My first choice would be that it could be self policing.
The second choice is for something like what has happened now," said
Frank Petersmark, assistant vice president of information technologies
at Amerisure and Cos. In Farmington Hills, Mich.
The U.S. Department of Justice, a bevy of state attorneys general filed
action against Microsoft on Monday to curb what they called predatory
business practices, a violation of federal and state antitrust laws.
(See IDG.net's Microsoft legal news channel for background information.).
Microsoft wasted no time in portraying innovation as the biggest victim
of the government action.
"How ironic that in the United States -- where freedom and innovation
are core values -- these regulators are trying to punish an American
company that has worked hard and successfully to deliver on these values,"
said Chairman and CEO Bill Gates in a statement.
"We believe an anti-trust lawsuit is counterproductive, costly to the
taxpayers and ultimately will be unsuccessful in the courts," said Gates."The
government's action today is a step backward for America ... This suit
is all about Microsoft's right to innovate on behalf of consumers --
the right to integrate new technologies into Windows as they develop."
Netscape Communications, however, a company that prodded the government
to act, claims that Microsoft worked mightily to thwart its chances
in the marketplace.
"We believe government investigators have examined the case thoroughly
and would not have brought action against Microsoft unless their investigations
had uncovered serious violations of the law," said Netscape in a release.
"For the OEMs, this case can mean the return to a time when they had
more control over their own products ... For consumers, this case will
mean protection of their right to choose what they want to use on and
access from their computers. For software developers, this case will
mean a renewed incentive to innovate, without worry that their innovations
will either be coopted or destroyed by Microsoft. For Microsoft, this
case can mean a return to a time of competing on the merits, indeed
on the basis of their innovations, rather than on the basis of their
monopoly power and leverage."
Most vendors, however, were keeping a low profile over the suit and
letting the punches land where they may. Lotus and Novell, often quick
to compete with Microsoft, had no comment on the litigation.
"We have been absent from all this on purpose -- we did not go to the
Pep rally in New York, we have not been very visible in the press. All
we have done is offer to Aptiva users free upgrade to Win 98," said
a source close to IBM.
"Even Microsoft doesn't expect a tremendous amount of sales in the
first year of Win98. So how could the OEM be all that upset about this
suit?" he asked. The bigger issue is: is government getting involved
in technology and dictating product design to companies."
A spokesman for PC vendor Dell said that they didn't perceive themselves
as benefiting from such litigation.
"We have been pushing for the timely release of Windows 98. We do not
see why that should be delayed," said T.R. Reid at Dell. "Customers
and the industry have been planning for it and we would like to see
it released as promptly as possible.
"In terms of the broader issue between DOJ and Microsoft, we have deliberately
stayed out of that. That is not, at its core, a Dell issue. We are watching
it with interest like many others, but we will not comment on that specific
dispute. We'll wait at the outcome and se what tools are available and
what customers want and take the appropriate," said Reid.
The intrusion of the government was upsetting to some. Ed Yurcisin,
director of technology services at Microstrategy, in Vienna, Va., defended
Microsoft.
"The big thing is Microsoft has a lot of little battles it gets to
fight," he said. "They've got a lot of people going after them."
He charged that Netscape also has been trying to dominate the browser
market, by expanding its browser product line. Microstrategy uses Microsoft
is Visual Basic and C++ programming tools and also has integrated its
products with the Microsoft SQL Server database, Yurcisin said.
A data warehouse application developer at a large health care concern
said developers would like to see more competition, to keep prices down.
Microsoft has perhaps been a little heavy-handed, said the developer,
Thomas D. Palmer, director of application development at Premier Inc.,
of Charlotte, N.C.
But Microsoft's power may be a bit illusory, similar to IBM years ago,
he said. "Everyone was down on IBM in the 70's," Palmer said. "[The
industry was] looking at the federal government cracking down on IBM
when that really wasn't necessary," as shifts in the marketplace subsequently
reduced IBM's clout, he said.