Time: Mon Dec 15 08:12:55 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Questions are growing about Microsoft's power and arrogance Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >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. > > >Respectfully, >Nick Ashton >The American Agenda >Web Site. http://www.americanagenda.com > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail