[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Transcript of MS Remedies
http://www.crn.com/dailies/weekending041098/apr08dig03.asp
Microsoft Rivals Circulate
Monopoly Remedies
11:08 AM EST Wed., Apr. 08, 1998
..............
Editors Note: The text below is ver batim transcript of
the remedies. Authorship is unknown, but assumed to
be a group of Microsoft competitors.
Until the Justice Department files its broader
monopolization case, we are unable to completely
address the issue of appropriate remedies. Much of
the Justice Department's case is fact-dependent and
the remedies should be a clear and measured
response to the antitrust violations identified.
Nevertheless, based upon the information already
available, we propose a set of remedies that will
have a broad and significant impact on the way in
which the owner of the dominant operating system
conducts its business. We also propose a monitoring
system that is streamlined and would not require
Justice to seek judicial remedies for any and all
infractions. Among the remedies we seek are:
1. Separate the Applications Business Units from the
Operating Systems Units; equal access to technical
information. There is an inherent conflict of interest
when the owner of the owner of the dominant
operating system also develops its own applications
for competitive markets. Only the complete separate
between the two business units will ensure a level
playing field in the development of software
applications for Microsoft's operating systems. In
addition, Microsoft should provide Windows licensees
with information regarding specifications without
delay but within a commercially reasonable time from
the time it first provides the information to its own
application developers, and permit that licensee, to
use its certification marks to represent truthfully
that
the application is interoperable or compatible with the
operating system.
2. Prohibit the Crippling of Competing Products;
Open Windows Interfaces. Microsoft should be
prohibited from intentionally disabling, crippling or
otherwise interfering with the intended functionality
and execution of other products. Similarly, the firm
should not suggest that other products may be
incompatible that are in fact known to be compatible.
We believe that the promotion of interoperability and
open standards generally enhances competition and
innovation in the software industry. The APIs for
Windows should therefore be made public.
3. Prohibit Tying the Operating System to Other
Applications. Each of Microsoft's products must be
sold and priced separately from the OS. The
operating system vendor should not include its own
products as part of the operating system unless it
gives the same ability to integrate products and
services into the operating system to competing
vendors.
4. Prohibit Predatory Pricing. Free isn't free when the
vendor owns the operating system. Free products for
more than an introductory or promotional period of
time (three months) must be presumed to be part of
a predatory pricing strategy. The owner of the
operating system is in a unique position to subsidize
tied products indefinitely in an effort to kill the
market
for competitive products. Each of Microsoft's
products must therefore be priced, marketed, and
sold on its own.
5. Prohibit Anti-Competitive Contracting and
Licensing. Prohibit Microsoft from requiring in its
end-user or developer license restrictions that are not
reasonably related to the subject matter of the
product being licensed. Among the licensing practices
that must be prohibited are: a) requiring licensees to
train engineers in other Microsoft products as a
condition for a Windows 95 license; b)restricting the
licensee from testing, or benchmarking Microsoft
products; c) requiring cross-licensing of patents; d)
requiring the provision to Microsoft of unrelated
technical and marketing information.
6. Permit OEMs to Interrupt the "Boot-Up Sequence."
Microsoft should be barred from blocking the ability
of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to
interrupt the boot-up sequence to add the OEM' own
content or software. In addition, artificial barriers
should not be established that unreasonably limit the
ability of a hardware configure the desktop to utilize
other software, content or services, except where
such a reconfiguration would impair the core functions
of the operating system.
7. Prohibit Any Discriminatory Access to Internet
Content through the Operating System. A dominant
operating system should not be used to favor Internet
content that is owned, offered by, or preferentially
licensed to the operating system vendor. Consumers
should be given the greatest possible ability to set
and choose links to Internet content and to replace
any links provided by the operating system vendor
with links of their own choosing. Nor should the
operating system vendor require web sites to display
and promote products and services of the dominant
operating system provider, or discourage the use of
competing products and services.
8. Prohibit Pre-Announcements of Products more
than 6 months in advance. Pre-announcements of
specific products or features are, at times, very
relevant to a broad range of industry players in terms
of assisting them in determining technology trends.
However, the intentional pre-announcement of
products that do not yet exist can have the effect of
freezing the market. When a product
pre-announcement is knowingly false, it may harm
competition and restrict the availability to the market
of innovative products from other vendors.
9. Divestiture of Compatibility Laboratories. We
believe that it is ultimately unworkable to have the
owner of the dominant operating system manage the
testing of compatibility for software and hardware
products. Only a third party can properly manage that
sensitive process of certification of compatibility.
10. Industry Monitoring of Compliance with the
Remedies Identified Above. The proposed
restrictions on Microsoft's business practices are
broad and complex. We believe it is unworkable to
require the Justice Department to file suit for any and
all infractions. It is therefore necessary for Justice
to
establish an industry review mechanism that has the
ability to hear complaints related to non-compliance,
determine the accuracy of such complaints, and
propose remedies that can be effectuated without
judicial intervention.
CAB