X
Tech

Microsoft - A bully exposed?

With the antitrust case against Microsoft reaching a critical phase, the company finds itself having to account for its actions as never before. On Wednesday, Silicon.com mounts a defence of the software giant. Here, we put forward the case for the prosecution
Written by Suzanna Kerridge, Contributor

With the antitrust case against Microsoft reaching a critical phase, the company finds itself having to account for its actions as never before. On Wednesday, Silicon.com mounts a defence of the software giant. Here, we put forward the case for the prosecution

We've heard of "terrifying threats" to block competition, bullying people into submission, and promises to "cut off the air supply". And no, this is not the synopsis of a 'how to' guide by a Mafia don. It's the story of William H Gates III, a middle-class boy who grew up to be one of the world's richest men. Gates' company, Microsoft, currently stands accused of anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. Over the last four weeks, vendor after vendor has taken the stand to swear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Some of the 'truths' that have come to light could seem as nothing more than sour grapes at Microsoft's success. But testimony from nearly all the major players suggests that something a bit more sinister than normal business practice has been going on in Seattle. Can this many people be guilty of perjury? Take, for example the charges of software sabotage. Avadis Tevanian, senior vice president of software engineering at Apple, claimed Microsoft deliberately wrote its ActiveMovie software so that it crippled Apple's QuickTime whenever a user tried to activate it. Similar charges have been voiced by Netscape and RealNetworks. They accused Microsoft of making its Windows software incompatible with their products. One complaint too many for it to be a coincidence, perhaps? But the most compelling evidence of Microsoft's bully-boy tactics was heard at the beginning of the fourth week of the trial by Steven McGeady. As an executive at Intel, he should be Gates' greatest ally. Instead, his testimony served to buttress earlier accounts from AOL, Apple and Netscape of bullying and coercion. According to McGeady, Microsoft threatened to cancel support of Intel's MMX chip unless the Intel Architecture Lab stopped working on its Internet software. The "credible and fairly terrifying threat" (in McGeady's own words) jeopardised Intel's $500m MMX project. In his testimony, Gates insisted he did not tell Intel to stick to hardware and let Microsoft get on with the software. He claimed he had been concerned about Intel producing incompatible, low quality software. McGeady went on to detail how, in November 1995, Microsoft executives said their company would "cut off the air supply" of Netscape, its main Internet rival, by giving away its Internet Explorer (IE) browser for free. Again, Gates denied this allegation. David Colburn, AOL's senior vice president of business affairs, revealed in court that the real reason behind his company's decision to choose IE over Navigator as its primary browser was not its technical superiority. He testified that his company agreed to use IE because it wanted something in return: a promotional spot on the opening screen of all Windows-based computers. Microsoft played down the significance of the deal and said IE had been chosen for its technical merits. Computer makers offered written evidence that they had to take Internet Explorer if they wanted to include Windows in their PCs. When one manufacturer resisted, Microsoft threatened to withdraw its Windows license. Microsoft has stepped over the line of healthy competitive behaviour and is now seeking to undermine any competition to preserve its dominant position. Microsoft is the market leader in the operating systems market not because its products are better than anyone else's, but because its marketing department is bigger, its bank account healthier and its tactics more aggressive. With power and influence comes a responsibility not to use that position to intimidate and bully allies or competitors. And that's a responsibility Microsoft is unwilling to assume. So what do you think? Is Microsoft guilty of aggressive, bullying and questionable tactics? Or is this a case of jealousy rearing its ugly head? Email editorial@silicon.com with your views
Editorial standards