Microsoft Brief

Introducing the MoJo Wire’s ongoing trial coverage of U.S. v. Microsoft, and what it means — if anything — for you.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s Standard Oil for the Information Age: Today Microsoft is going to court. At issue: Did Microsoft unfairly and illegally leverage its monopoly in desktop operating systems to gain a new monopoly on the Internet? Well, depends who you ask. We think we know, and we’re looking forward to a month or two of show-stopping, outrageous rechiseling of reality by Microsoft’s lawyers. (“Browsers? What browsers? Rocky, watch me pull this operating system out of my hat!”)

In past showdowns, the Justice Department has proved a poor match for Microsoft’s wit, but this time things will be different. Arguing the government’s case will be none other than David Boies, the very lawyer who trounced the government’s own antitrust suit against IBM in the 1970s. Since he’s worked both sides of this street, we trust he knows what he’s doing.

First he will have to show that Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop operating systems. That should be easy, since Microsoft has about 90 percent of the market. (Past antitrust cases have proved monopolies with as little as 40 percent.) Then he has to show that Microsoft unfairly and illegally used that monopoly to force computer manufacturers to put Internet Explorer on their machines, to make Internet service providers offer Internet Explorer to their customers, and to bully Netscape into making its browser incompatible with Windows. That will be more difficult, admittedly, but we have faith in the government’s collection of more than a thousand juicy smoking-gun memos, confidential e-mails from Bill Gates himself, and other assorted documents. (The world’s richest man is scheduled to testify by videotaped deposition only.) Microsoft, of course, will argue that the documents have been taken out of context and that it has behaved no worse than any other high-tech company. (The latter, we concede, might be true.)

Complicating the government’s case is a June appeals court ruling, on an earlier case, which says Microsoft was perfectly within its rights to include Internet Explorer with Windows 95. This ruling would seem to have poisoned the current case like a bad clam. That’s because the heart of the new case — the government contends that Microsoft broke antitrust law when it combined Internet Explorer with Windows 98 — is very similar to what the appeals court already struck down.

Naturally, the common wisdom says the appellate ruling sucked the guts out of the new case, but we would argue for a more subtle interpretation of the facts. One, the two cases are based on different law (the first one on a badly worded 1994 consent decree, the second on the venerable Sherman Antitrust Act). Two, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson will probably buck the appeals court decision, arguing that the IE-Windows combination doesn’t necessarily benefit consumers. (After all, some are sure to prefer a different browser or no browser at all.) And three — and most important — Judge Jackson has in the past tended to favor the Department of Justice over Microsoft anyway.

He’s likely to let them win on some counts, though possibly not all. Then Microsoft will very likely take the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which seems to adore the free market champions as much as Jackson seems to loathe them. After that, the case could go to the Supreme Court sometime in, oh, 2000 or 2002, according to Microsoft partner MSNBC.

Of course, by that time the legal case will be irrelevant anyway, Microsoft having long ago eaten up what remains of Netscape’s market share. And no matter what the outcome of the court case, you can bet we’ll still be using unreliable, annoying, poorly designed software in the year 2002. Probably in the year 3002 too. We’ll keep you posted.

Cate T. Corcoran has been writing about Microsoft since 1994. She recently completed a six-month series on the company and antitrust issues, called “Vs. Microsoft,” for TheStreet.com.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate