Re: Alternative MS solutions

[Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>]

On Sat, 8 May 1999, Lewis A. Mettler wrote:
> I think the observation to be made is everyone can always get access to
> essential facilities when provided by a monopolist.

That does not appear to be the case here, unless you define everyone as
everyone who runs MS Windows.  Most Unix shops are disheartened when MS
buys a software company, not because it means more or less competition
but because they (the purchased company) will be restricted from
developing on any platform other than MS Windows and perhaps Mac. Sure
there's a handicapped version of IE for Solaris but this exception only
illustrates the rule.

It's not just applications but servers as well.  MS has done a good job
done restricting Samba, TAS, and Cascade from developing Windows server
software by the use of undocumented calls and difficult to trace RPCs
in client software from Excel to Exchange.  Windows 2000 will soon be
released, obsoleting previous efforts to write competing Win95, 98 and
NT server software.  No competitor can ever hope to navigate the
boobytrapped system calls, overwritten DLLs, undocumented APIs and
other ways which MS "innovates".

Unfortunately these uncompetitive practices are being extended to new
frontiers daily.  QuickBooks99 for example, installs an IE icon on your
desktop even if you tell it not to.  It also calls IE regardless of
your specified browser.  Many microsoft.com websites also display pages
differently in non-IE browsers and one
(http://microsoft.com/NTServer/all/Downloads.asp) even attacks Netscape
under Unix.  This trojan web page eats 12MB of memory (permanently),
requires 2 minutes to load (vs 15 seconds under IE), and sometimes
crashes Netscape browsers.  The malicious HTML was designed by MS
specifically for Netscape browsers. IE displays a different page.

> Breaking up Microsoft along product lines and multiple times within key
> lines such as the OS does not harm the products nor consumers.  If
> those products are any good at all, then having real price competition
> for those products can only benefit the consumer.

There is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise.  Though you
can bet that Msrs Ballmer and Gates will do everything in their
power to liberally interpret the court's decision, as they did in
'95, breaking up MS can only benefit consumers in the long run.

How many more innovating companies like Netscape, Go, Netmanage, and
Digital Research will we lose to the selective non-enforcement of
anti-trust law by laissez-faire judicial appointees?

Roger Marquis