Time: Mon Dec 15 08:26:11 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA03950
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:23:11 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA01372;
	Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:17:36 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd001332; Mon Dec 15 08:17:16 1997
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:12:56 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Questions are growing about Microsoft's power and

>Some of my favorite comments come from this man.
>Questions are growing about Microsoft's power and
>        arrogance - and the quality of its products 
>               by William Rees Moog
>                  London Times 
>     Is Bill Gates really selling us all Ladas?
>  Microsoft has developed the most powerful monopoly in
>  human history, even more powerful than the monopoly
>  John D. Rockefeller built in Standard Oil. This is proving
>  to be the year in which the public attitude to Microsoft has
>  changed. Last January Bill Gates was still generally seen
>  as a benefactor of mankind, who had developed new and
>  efficient software to spread the advance of electronic
>  communications. Now, this December, Mr Gates is
>  widely seen as a systematic monopolist of communication
>  software who is exploiting the information age. Microsoft
>  is viewed as greedy, not over-competent, manipulative
>  and arrogant. It is thought to be charging too much for
>  software which is still far from being user-friendly. His
>  critics attack Bill Gates, as their critics attacked the old
>  monopolists, as a "malefactor of great wealth". 
>  The degree of monopoly is not in doubt. Microsoft
>  provides the software for more than 90 per cent of
>  personal computers and for 80 per cent of
>  word-processing. Some 80 per cent of computers use
>  Windows 95. Next year Microsoft planned to launch
>  Windows 98, which was intended to include an "Internet
>  Explorer" facility. If that does go ahead, the Microsoft
>  monopoly could well be extended to the Internet. A world
>  monopoly in communication software would give
>  awesome power and be extremely profitable. 
>  Microsoft competitors, and the American Government,
>  allege that Microsoft uses its power to lock out
>  competitors. Last week there was a crucial judgment in
>  the American courts which went against Microsoft. The
>  issue arose out of Microsoft's consent agreement with the
>  US Government in 1995 that it would not seek to extend
>  its monopoly by putting Internet browsing software in a
>  single package with Windows 95. This could have
>  resulted in the 80 per cent of users who have Windows
>  95 also automatically having a Microsoft connection for
>  browsing on the Internet. The main loser would have been
>  Netscape Communications, Microsoft's main competitor
>  in this part of the market. 
>  Microsoft did not directly break the consent decree; it
>  thought it had found a way around it. The company made
>  the purchase of Windows 95 conditional on taking
>  Microsoft's Internet browsing software as well. The US
>  Government objected, and last week, in a preliminary
>  hearing, the judge upheld the Government's position. 
>  The United States has a long history of hostility to
>  business monopolies; a series of big monopolies have
>  been reduced or broken up. The Supreme Court in 1911
>  dissolved the original Standard Oil Company into a
>  number of big but separate companies. After the Second
>  World War, American Telephone and Telegraph was
>  similarly broken up into regional companies and IBM,
>  which had a monopoly position in computer hardware,
>  had to sign a consent decree after litigation in the 1980s.
>  The precedents under American law are that Microsoft
>  will not be allowed to expand, or even retain, its present
>  degree of monopoly. 
>  Public opinion has historically been the decisive factor in
>  forcing the break-up of American monopolies. It was
>  President Theodore Roosevelt who called the anti-trust
>  journalists "muckrakers", but they did their job. In his later
>  years, John D. Rockefeller, the greatest individual
>  monopolist before Bill Gates, went for advice to a public
>  relations firm, and took to giving out dimes to children in
>  the street in order to soften his image as a hard-hearted
>  businessman. He also became a philanthropist on a large
>  scale. He may have become personally more popular, but
>  the idea of monopoly did not. 
>  There is already a lively anti-Microsoft campaign, though
>  so far it has largely been expressed in the independent
>  rather than the American establishment press. On the
>  Internet itself there are Websites devoted to criticising
>  Microsoft; there are also samizdat anti-Microsoft sheets,
>  which are photocopied and passed from hand to hand.
>  Now something new is happening. Businessmen, both in
>  the United States and Britain, are reviewing the results of
>  their own investment in information technology, and many
>  of them are not liking what they see. 
>  In the early 1990s many UK businesses developed an
>  innocent faith in investment in information technology. The
>  board decided what the needs were, consultants came in
>  and made recommendations, the board approved them as
>  an item of capital expenditure, the hardware and software
>  were installed. Big improvements in efficiency and savings
>  of staff were expected, as was a large increase in profits
>  as a return on the IT investment. Unfortunately, things did
>  not work out like that for most businesses, at any stage of
>  the process. 
>  Most senior managers now at board level have only a
>  superficial understanding of information technology;
>  boards are bad at deciding what they need; consultants
>  are expensive, hard to monitor, and of variable quality;
>  their recommendations are often inappropriate to the real
>  needs of the business; the technology and software
>  seldom deliver what the consultants have promised, and
>  always cost more than the boards have budgeted for; the
>  IT systems need to be updated continuously; the
>  once-for-all capital expenditure turns out to be an annual
>  commitment, tending to rise year after year; the
>  improvement in efficiency is less than has been forecast,
>  and staff savings are much less - indeed, sometimes staff
>  numbers actually rise; profit gains are much smaller and
>  the IT investment is much bigger than the board hoped
>  for; instead of being a profitable investment, IT turns out
>  to be a running cost. 
>  Boards blame everybody, including particularly the
>  consultants, and sometimes even themselves. But most of
>  all they blame Microsoft, which is a monopoly for much of
>  the software and seems to be getting rich while failing to
>  deliver the goods. The boards want a normal suppliers'
>  choice of simple and reliable software, which does all that
>  is asked of it, allows real savings to be made, does not
>  cost too much, and does not have to be changed too
>  often. No doubt that is what Microsoft or its successors
>  will be providing in a generation's time, but it is certainly
>  not what businesses have been getting in the 1990s.
>  Microsoft, in monopolising a world of profit, has also
>  monopolised a world of blame. It is rather as though an
>  automobile company were the sole world supplier of cars,
>  priced them at the Mercedes level, built in obsolescence
>  so that every owner had to buy a new one every year, and
>  actually sold Ladas. 
>  The next litigation is going to be equally important. It
>  concerns Microsoft's use of the computer language Java,
>  which can provide comparability between Windows 95
>  and other computer software. Java would undermine
>  Microsoft's Windows monopoly and Microsoft has been
>  trying to avoid that. Sun Microsystems, which developed
>  Java, is trying to force Microsoft to operate according to
>  what it believes to be the contract. Of course, Microsoft
>  has the reply, and is even counter-suing. My belief is that
>  the American hatred of monopoly, which dates at least
>  from the 1880s, will prevail. The best advice one can offer
>  Bill Gates is to start handing out money to children; I
>  know he will need to offer them dollar bills rather than
>  dimes. 
>Nick Ashton
>The American Agenda
>Web Site.  http://www.americanagenda.com

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail