[long] Re: Press coverage favors big companies, earlier speakers

["Eric M. Bennett" <ericb@pobox.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:

>Has anyone noticed that press coverage of the July 23 Judiciary Committee
>hearing favors Rob Glaser's testimony and also testimony from Ellison and
>Papows (of Oracle and Lotus, respectively)? To me, the most compelling was
>that of Michael Jeffress, founder of TV Host, whose life and business stand
>to be COMPLETELY destroyed by Microsoft. (All the others have their
>fortunes made. If their companies go under, they'll survive.)

The industry press has probably heard this sort of story too many times:
Micrographx, Citrix, Stac, etc.

It's not news.  Many companies claim that Microsoft pretends to partner
with them only to turn around and bundle a competing product with Windows.

I have mainly relied on Techweb and ZDNet for information on the hearings.
If the general media--which is much less familiar with these past
allegations--is taking the same tack, I too would question why Jeffress
didn't get some attention.

However, focusing on Mr. Glaser's testimony gets back to an issue that I
think is of vital importance: consumers need to be able to see with their
own eyes the effects of Microsoft's business practices.  First-hand
experiences with the problems Microsoft causes will probably sway more
consumers than all the blustery comments of Larry Ellison.  Consumers can
*see* firsthand on their own computers what happens to products from Real
Networks when they install Microsoft's video player.  They can also observe
the intrusion of Microsoft Outlook Express on top of other email clients
(Dr. Papows mentioned two recent and independent news articles, one by Brit
Hume and another in the New York Times [the author wasn't mentioned], which
claim that Outlook can pop up in place of Lotus or other products when the
user has not intended for it to do so).  Consumers cannot directly observe
that TV Host lost bundling agreements with computer makers.  Either their
PCs came with TV Host or they did not.

I don't mean to say that Jeffress's testimony isn't important and should
not be covered; I think that the opposite is true.  However, I do not
believe it has the same potential direct relevance for consumers as do the
allegations from Glaser and Papows.

>I don't know if the press decided they wanted to go to lunch, or ignored
>the later speakers while writing up and interviewing the earlier ones, or
>simply don't care about ANYONE but the big names and heavy hitters. But
>what they've done in this case is miss the true story: Micrsosoft not only
>is hurting the big, well-capitalized, well-heeled guys but is striking at
>the grass roots. This is what's really scary, IMHO.

Microsoft's ability to intimidate small companies doesn't surprise me, and
given the nature of Mr. Jeffress's remarks I have to question whether he
may have been rather naive in sharing as many details with Microsoft as he
seems to have shared. (If you followed this entire hearing and the entire
hearing in March, you probably noticed that Senator DeWine, chairman of the
antitrust subcommittee, is very good at playing devil's advocate and asking
hard questions along these lines. I would have expected him to raise this
issue if he had not had to leave early or if the hearing had gone longer
and had thus given another senator the chance to raise it.)  Of course,
regardless of whether TV Host goofed in sharing too many details of its
product with Microsoft, I still have to take issue with Microsoft's
decision to tie its own listing program to the Windows 98 monopoly; the
bundling is a separate issue from whether or not Microsoft may have
misappropriated TV Host technology.

It's Microsoft's success in bullying big companies is what I find really
scary.  Microsoft can force the world's largest computer manufacturers to
keep their lips sealed and can *repeatedly and consistently* force
journalists to quote their employees as "high-level OEM executives who
requested anonymity due to fear of reprisal from Microsoft".  It takes a
lot of power to be able to do that.  And despite the attention from the
DOJ, which I would have thought would embolden these people to go on the
record, it hasn't stopped.  Some of the articles this week concerning the
allegations from the former Acer executive include corroborating quotations
to journalists from executives who continue to request anonymity due to
fear of Microsoft.



An additional issue that has concerned me for a long time is allegations
regarding contracts that require Microsoft partners to agree not to sue
Microsoft for patent infringement.  Mr. Kertzman discussed this in the
context of Windows developers, but I have also heard that Microsoft imposes
similar restrictions on computer manufacturers.

Several years ago, Apple offered x86 compatibility cards for Macintosh
systems.  I believe (but am not sure) that Apple also included Windows with
these cards.  At some point, however, Microsoft supposedly added the
intellectual property right restrictions to the Windows license.  Apple
stopped selling x86 cards (IIRC this was during Spindler's tenure as CEO),
although third party hardware companies continue to offer them.  The word
on the street was that Apple--having tangled with Microsoft over
intellectual property rights in the past--was in no mood to agree to this
term and had refused to sign the new license with Microsoft because it did
not want to grant Microsoft the right to all its patents.  Result: no more
PC compatibility bundles from Apple.

Although my memory is somewhat fuzzy on the details and strength of the
allegations, I would consider this to be a fairly serious issue and I hope
it is addressed in further investigations.  It may not get much attention
as relates to companies like Dell, which aren't doing much R&D and probably
don't have that many patents to begin with.  It is somewhat more important
relating to Apple, although clearly a Windows license is not essential to
Apple's core business.  It is more important to a company like Gateway
given that Gateway has purchsed AmigaOS and apparently intends to market it
as a product that competes with Microsoft at the same time that Gateway
would almost certainly still rely on Windows for the majority of its
business.  It could also apply to any other OS vendor (DEC and now, as a
result of the merger, Compaq). I also have to wonder if Microsoft ever
tried to impose similar terms on IBM.

I would like to see one of these contracts opened up to the public so we
can see the exact details of the restrictions--if any--Microsoft placed on
the ability of Windows licensees to sue for patent infringement.  If they
are anything like the license agreements that Mr. Kertzman explained to the
committee, I would be extremely dismayed (although at this point not
particularly surprised).

If anybody can point me towards more definitive info on this or help
clarify my memory, I'd appreciate it.



--
Eric Bennett (http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/), Cornell Biochemistry Department

[If you are Bill Gates and you] want to control video? Just add it to
Windows. Want to control Java? Just add it to Windows. Want to control the
Internet? Just add it to Windows. Everyone has to buy Windows.
-Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO