We are now coming to the end of the dissenting US states' attempt
to achieve a travesty of justice in the last round of the Microsoft
antitrust battle. And unless this nonsense is thrown out, it will
cost you.
The dissenting states have not presented any evidence to show their
demands will benefit consumers - or at least provide enough
benefits to outweigh the obvious disadvantages of making Windows an
even bigger and less consistent ragbag than it already is.
Indeed, their demands look more like a wish list for Microsoft's
competitors, as one of Microsoft's expert witnesses, Kenneth
Elzinga, professor of economics at the University of Virginia,
claimed last week.
The most worrying idea is the possibility that Microsoft could be
forced to distribute a rival's middleware - such as Sun's Java
Virtual Machine (JVM) - while removing or blocking access to its
own bundled middleware.
But not only is it possible to successfully distribute middleware
without bundling it, it has been done more than once.
For example, Macromedia says Flash boasts 98% market penetration
among Internet users. Adobe Acrobat, Real Player and ICQ are also
very widely installed.
Since most consumers are willing and able to download multiple
versions of Flash, it is absurd to claim they are unable to
download Sun's JVM. They don't do it because they don't want it.
Indeed, if they did, there would be no reason to force Microsoft to
bundle it.
The dissenting states' case is also based on economic nonsense. It
should be obvious even to them that there are no cost savings to be
gained from removing or hiding parts of Windows.
In fact, every variation increases the cost of testing, the cost of
distribution (more stock-keeping units), the cost of using Windows
(through adding parts later, as required), and the cost of support.
Bizarrely, the dissenting states assert that these increased costs
should be compensated by lower charges.
And as Elzinga points out, many of the dissenting states' demands
cover product areas where Microsoft does not have the largest
market share, and that were not part of the original trial.
These include server operating systems, instant messaging, media
players and software for television set-top boxes. I can understand
why the companies that are market leaders in these areas want to
hobble Microsoft.
However, the attempt to use supposedly pro-competition laws to
restrict competition looks to me like a naked abuse of the legal
system.
Ironically, the claims made for legal purposes -that nothing can
stop Microsoft from taking over the world - contradict the claims
made for marketing purposes - that Microsoft is doomed because of
open source, network computing, the death of the PC, and so on. One
does not expect consistency, but this looks more like hypocrisy.
Jack Schofield is computer editor at the Guardian