IP: A world without Windows

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

A world without Windows?

Microsoft fears worst under states' plan; foes scoff at argument

By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff, 3/24/2002

WASHINGTON - In an effort to fend off harsh penalties for its violations of 
antitrust law, Microsoft Corp. is deploying what its critics call ''the 
doomsday defense.''

In US District Court here last week, the company made a startling assertion 
that if nine state attorneys general have their way, Microsoft will be 
forced to pull its flagship Windows operating system from the market.

It's an argument that draws scorn from the attorneys general and other 
Microsoft critics. But even they admit that there's some truth to it. And 
people who write software to run on Windows computers say the proposed 
state remedy will be at best a headache and at worst a nightmare.

Microsoft has already settled its antitrust dispute with the US Justice 
Department and nine states. But nine other states, including Massachusetts, 
along with the District of Columbia say the settlement is far too lenient. 
They're trying to persuade Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to reject the deal 
and ratify their alternative settlement, one that imposes far harsher 
penalties on the world's largest software maker.

The states want to require Microsoft to offer an ''unbundled'' version of 
Windows that allows for the removal of up to 10 software components, 
described as ''middleware.'' These include such features as the Internet 
browser, instant messaging software, and the music and video player. 
Microsoft would be given six months to introduce these customized versions 
of Windows, and must guarantee that they work as well as the full version. 
And Microsoft would have to provide these versions for four different 
editions of Windows - Windows 98, ME, XP Home, and XP Professional.

But Microsoft says this would destroy the company's Windows business. 
''This will be a death sentence for Windows,'' said Dan K. Webb, the former 
federal prosecutor who is Microsoft's lead attorney.

In opening arguments last week, Webb said Microsoft would have to produce 
over 4,000 variations of Windows to comply with the state's demands. That's 
because it would have to produce Windows versions containing every possible 
combination of the middleware products, he said, adding that each of these 
versions would need months of exhaustive and costly tests to ensure 
reliability. Webb said that testing for Windows XP took 5 million hours 
over 18 months. Similar testing would be necessary for each of the Windows 
variants, he argued.

But beyond this, said Webb, the existence of thousands of different 
versions of Windows would be a disaster for the thousands of large and 
small companies that write Windows-compatible software. Today, these 
companies can be reasonably certain their software will work on any Windows 
machine. But many of these programs rely on some of the middleware that 
might be removed under the states' plan.

For example, some non-Microsoft programs use some of the Web browser code 
built into Windows, instead of writing their own browser software. Some 
others use features of the Microsoft media player. Independent software 
companies would no longer be able to assume that this code would be present 
on a Windows machine. They'd have to overhaul their own products, to ensure 
they work with all the different unbundled versions of Windows.

The result, claims Microsoft, would be a devastating blow not just to the 
Redmond, Wash., software giant, but to the entire computer industry and the 
US economy. Indeed, Webb argued that the consistency of the Windows 
operating system is at the heart of its popularity. If different Windows 
editions offered vastly different capabilities, few people would want to 
use the operating system anymore, and few software developers would choose 
to write Windows code.

The company's critics have little patience with Microsoft's complaints. 
Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly said that if Microsoft isn't 
forced to unbundle its software, rival makers of browsers, media players 
and the like will never get a fair chance to enter the market. ''I just 
don't think it's Draconian to allow people to compete,'' Reilly said.

Reilly did admit that having to offer other versions of Windows would be a 
tough job for Microsoft. ''But you've got to remember how we got here,'' he 
added. ''This is a company that's been found to have broken the law.''

Indeed, other Microsoft critics make the same point. ''Whether that's a big 
job or a little job is immaterial to us,'' said Ken Wasch, president of the 
Software and Information Industry Association, a trade group that supports 
tough penalties against Microsoft. ''If it's a big job, it's Microsoft's 
own doing, because they deliberately crafted their middleware to make it 
difficult to rip them out.''

David Farber, professor of computer science at the University of 
Pennsylvania, testified against Microsoft during the antitrust trial. He 
says that Microsoft is exaggerating the consequences of unbundling Windows. 
''Certainly you'll see a hiccup,'' said Farber. ''There's no question about 
that. But there'll be a lot more innovation because of the hiccup.'' 
Besides, said Farber, the unbundling would only affect future shipments of 
Windows, giving Microsoft and the rest of the industry plenty of time to 
sort out the problems.

Professional software developers have differing views about the prospect of 
unbundled versions of Windows.

Australian software engineer Rob Sanders said that it would be relatively 
easy for future software products to determine whether particular Microsoft 
middleware was present on a given computer. Where necessary, the software 
could install the needed code as part of its setup process. ''Any company 
which releases software assuming that the correct components are installed 
won't last long,'' said Sanders.

But Boston software developer Justin Rich doesn't want to see Windows 
unbundled. ''It will confuse the basic user who doesn't know much about 
computers,'' he said. ''Also, if you had computer companies like Dell or 
Compaq packaging media software, they are all going to have different ideas 
and programs, which will create a compatibility problem.''

Bob Boice, a programmer in Champaign, Ill., said that much of his code 
assumes the presence of Microsoft middleware. ''Should Microsoft be forced 
to `pull out' such technologies, it will cause me a great deal of work,'' 
he said. ''It's obvious that the folks at the state level who are urging 
this unbundling don't have a clue what they're really asking for.''

Hiawatha Bray can be reached by e-mail at 
<mailto:bray () globe com>bray () globe com.

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/