If I were a suspicious soul, I might wonder whether this document was aimed not so much at a judge’s eyes but at those of the business community and even the public. At stake are hearts, minds and, most crucial of all, the ability to control the world’s computer screens. That would explain why Microsoft’s publicity machine kicked into overdrive upon its filing, with a press conference, a Web-site publishing and a bevy of phone calls to journalists offering to reflect upon the paper’s legal and literary high points. And this effort, it turns out, was only one twist in a dervishlike spin cycle that saw Microsoft’s army of advocacy fan out to parry every thrust from the growing movement to clip the Redmond, Wash., company’s soaring feathers.
There have been plenty of those thrusts recently, ranging from Janet Reno’s October surprise to a Nov. 4 Senate hearing that began with Sen. Orrin Hatch (Republican, Novell) speaking about ““Microsoft’s recent efforts to exercise its monopoly power.’’ But the ultimate in Redmond-bashing came from consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who last week hosted a lavishly publicized bitch-a-thon where every Gates-hater in captivity lined up to unload on the Soft Satan, culminating with competitor Netscape’s general counsel’s charge that nothing less than ““our children’s future’’ is at stake if Bill G. isn’t snagged and neutered. For the kiddies, DON’T BE SOFT ON MICROSOFT buttons were handed out.
Microsoft’s response? More press conferences, a Wall Street Journal op-ed ostensibly by Gates, an open letter to Nader and distribution of its own button: RALPH NADER DOESN’T SPEAK FOR ME! Add to this a vigorous lobbying campaign, with nine firms registered to stump for Gates (most recent hire: former GOP bigfoot Vin Weber), and you have the makings of a full-scale conflagration of chatter.
Essentially the two opposing sides have each concocted a compelling yet self-servingly incomplete narrative. The anti-Bill faction depicts Microsoft as a rapacious monopolist. After grabbing hold of the most crucial aspect of the software business, the operating system, Microsoft has continually exploited that advantage to foist crummy, bloated products on users. Because Microsoft controls the desktop, and the desktop is the access point to the all-important Internet, as the Net grows, Microsoft may eventually rule the world, which will become a damp, sunless domain. (Sort of like Seattle during rainy season.) The government signs on to this view at least partially. It claims that by forcing computer manufacturers to ship a separate product, the Internet Explorer browser, along with Windows 95, Microsoft is unfairly boxing out its competitors.
Microsoft weaves a more upbeat tale. A well-meaning and moral band of techno-pioneers construct a great company and, indeed, an entire industry, by hard work, a solid sense of where computer technology is headed and, above all, commitment to customers. There’s no monopoly–everyone competes. With Microsoft continually innovating and competing, consumers get a constant flow of improved products at low prices. Competitors may complain about Microsoft, but the software business in general is booming; and though they fight Microsoft, Scott McNealy of Sun, Jim Barksdale of Netscape and Larry Ellison of Oracle have all accumulated the riches of Croesus.
But this cyberutopia is threatened by the evils of government intervention. The mean old DOJ doesn’t understand that Microsoft must have the right to design its own operating system. If the company decides, as indeed it has, that the browser is part of Windows, then by definition that’s the case, and tampering with it would be like ripping a square out of one of Rembrandt’s paintings. How can Microsoft serve its customers if the U.S. government won’t allow improvements in Windows?
The truth, of course, lies between these two stories. Yes, Microsoft got to where it is by sweat, software and being smarter. But it also clearly has an operating-system monopoly that gives it a potentially unfair advantage–an advantage too attractive for such an aggressively competitive organization to ignore. And yes, to date the software industry has proved to be nothing but a boon to consumers–but if all of Microsoft’s ambitious plans are realized, there may well be too much power in the hands of one company, already led by the world’s richest man.
So what should the government do? And when? Unfortunately, once you discard the tall tales, the easy answers fade away. The software world moves at such a rapid pace that regulating it is like performing surgery while riding a motorcycle. Only one thing is certain: wisdom will serve us better than spin-doctoring.
