Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: Microsoft
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:59:08 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:35:33 -0700 To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu> From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com> Subject: Microsoft Dave, I have written the following to put forth as clearly as I can why Microsoft deserved to lose their antitrust case.
Bob Frequently I encounter people who think the government is being unfair to Microsoft. I have written the following to support my view that Microsoft has violated the law and deserves to be seriously sanctioned, probably by being broken up. Bear in mind that I am an ardent free trader and have little use for government intervention in private business arrangements, I would like to try to make the case that Microsoft has, in fact, violated the law as written and that the government was correct to prosecute them. My credentials for making this case are 1) that I have been in the computer industgry since 1958 and 2) have done quite a bit of legal expert witness work, including the field of antitrust enforcement. Quite often people lump "bashing" of Microsoft with the bashing of the gun, tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries. In the case of these other industries, your description of them as being "bashed" is well founded. Not in the case of Microsoft. I am not attempting to defend the antitrust laws, since I personally think many of strictures imposed by them are indeed counterproductive. However, since they are on the books, I feels that all the players should abide by them. The essential problem here is that Microsoft has played fast and loose with the rules while Microsoft's competitors have not, being somewhat fearful of the power of the Federal Government. The intent of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, not competitors, although competition is needed in order to provide consumers with protection for a monopolistic supplier. So how does Microsoft harm consumers? There are essential three ways: 1. Price 2. Innovation 3. Irresponsible behavior Let me address these. In point of fact, only the first is really covered by the antitrust laws, but the second and third points are also relevant. First price. The marginal cost of production of software is near zero. Only a monopoly position could extort $50 (or more) from every computer buyer. When the PC was first intruduced in 1981, the cost to the computer manufacturer to license the operating system of the day from Microsoft was $50. The computer was sold at a price of 3,500 to 4,000 1981 dollars. That computer typically had a monochrome monitor, 64 kilobytes (NOT megabytes), a single floppy drive holding 360 KB, and no hard drive of any size. In 2000, a typical consumer machine sells for 800-1000 year 2000 dollars has a color monitor, 64 megabytes of memory, and a hard drive of 10+ gigabytes. The manufacturer still pays Microsoft $50 or more. Since the computer has declined so dramatically in price (a factor of 5-7 depending on how you calculate inflation), one could reasonably expect the cost of software to decline as well. Why not? The clear reason is lack of competition in operating systems. For computers using Intel, AMD, Cypress, etc chips (about 87% of all computers), Microsoft operating sytems (Windows in its various incarnations) have at least a 95% market share. For desktop machines, the MS market share is in excess of 98%. This market share was created with a very clever licensing policy (in my opinion, Microsoft's only significant innovation). This policy was essentially this. A manufacturer that agreed to pay Microsoft a flat fee for each machine produced (whether that machine was shipped with a Microsoft operating system of not) paid a (for the day) relative modest fee of about $50. A manufacturer that did not agree to pay the fee for all computers shipped paid a few for each operating system shipped approximately 3-5 times as much. The deal was not negotiable. A manufacturer would not have much choice, and having paid a fee for each machine would have no incentive to supply any alternative system (and in 1981, there were several). The need to be compatible with IBM, which shipped MS-DOS with their computers led substantially all manufacturers into shipping MS-DOS as well. Writers of application software then had no choice but to write software for MS-DOS (and subsequently Windows). The "lock-in" effect was quite literally unbreakable. So far in this chronology, I don't see that the antitrust laws have been violated. Microsoft's next step was problematical. They decided to move from systems and system tools into applications in a big way. To this end they used their inside knowledge of their plans in the operating system arena and their ability to selectively bundle, to shut out competition, and thereby lessen the pressure on prices. Several times over the last decade they have chosen to crush an innovative entrant by providing a similar product as a bundled item. This amounts to cross-subsidization of a non-monopoly product by a monopoly product and this is clearly not permitted. In short, given the volumes of software shipped with personal computers, if there were true competition, the price would more likely be one-quarter to one-third of the current price. Second issue: innovation. Microsoft is sometimes credited with being an innovator. Nothing could be further from the truth. Microsoft was an army of programmers who are quite capable of producing very complex software, but they do not seem to have the ability to come up with significant innovations. They may do engineering, but not invention. Starting with MS-DOS, you may remember that it was originally written by Seattle Computing and was purchased by Microsoft who knew, as Seattle Computing did not, that IBM was interested in outsourcing the operating system for the personal computer (PC) that they were shortly to intruduce. Windows was basically copied from the Apple operating system (which itself was copied from Xerox). The first two versions of Windows were disasters. Only when MS reached version 3 did they succeed in producing a system that was workable. Word was derivative of numerous word processing systems (Word Perfect, Word Star, Borland, etc) then on the market. Excel was similarly derivative of already available spreadsheets (A---, Lotus 123, etc). It was widely believed in the industry that Microsoft used secret hooks into their operating system that were not published for use by other application software houses. When Microsoft couldn't engineer their own product, they usually took the tack of buying out a competitor. Only the roadblocks put forth by the FTC and Justice Department prevented several of these mergers or acquisitions. The browser case is so well known it is not worth repeating, but is another case of egregious behavior on the part of Microsoft. The net of all this is that potential competition was seriously discouraged from competing (or attempting to compete) with Microsoft. The industry was thereby deprived on many innovations that would otherwise have appeared. Finally, Microsoft's products, had they been automobiles would not only have been recalled, but probably banned. Substantially all industry insiders agree, even those who support Microsoft, that Microsoft's software is inferior in reliability to most industry software. It seems that MS has concentrated on sizzle and not the steak. They are undoubtedly correct that fancy new features sell better than bug fixes, but it is nevertheless irresponsible to put out software that crashes several times every day. Microsoft likes to point to the increased productivity produced by computers and increased useability, but never offsets this with the time required to reboot, restore files, and otherwise recover from software glitches which they, themselves, inflict. It may not be a violation of the law to sell crappy software, but it is definitely immoral. I conclude, therefore, that the government suggested remedy of splitting Microsoft into a systems and an application company is to correct one. As a side note, this will probably benefit the shareholder's of Microsoft since the history of break-ups has been that the value of the parts exceeds the value of the original company.
Current thread:
- IP: Microsoft Dave Farber (Oct 12)