Embedded XP isn't the remedy for MS

COMMENTARY--The climax to the Microsoft remedy trial--Bill Gates' testimony--has come and gone and it's a fair time to analyze where things stand and to imagine what the software industry will look like post-judgment.

ZDNN has its own analysis loaded with quotes from the usual gang of lawyers, including the ubiquitous Rich Gray of Menlo Park, California. A consensus is emerging.

Gray says--and he's not alone in this opinion--that Gates effectively portrayed the states' proposal as overreaching and impractical. But by getting Gates to admit that you could configure Windows XP Embedded to run on a PC without IE, Windows Media Player, Outlook Express and the rest of what lawyers call "middleware," the judge could order Microsoft to offer Windows XP Embedded to OEMs as an option on PCs that would allow them to replace the middleware with third-party alternatives.

I suspect Microsoft wouldn't object to this as a solution, because no OEM in its right mind would want to buy it. Why not? The answer is provided in another part of Gates' testimony that received only occasional mention in news reports: Windows XP Embedded does not include the ability for end-users to install new applications. OEMs could still add their own applications, but most users would expect to be able to buy new programs and install them at some point.

The obvious next question is why Microsoft doesn't add an installer. In fact, if this question wasn't asked during the trial, you really have to wonder why. Thing is, embedded systems like ATMs and routers aren't meant to have end-user applications installed on them during run-time. An embedded OS is designed for OEMs to be able to define a specific configuration, and test it in defined circumstances.

In the end, and based only on news reports--on which I don't normally rely--I don't see the Judge buying this argument of the states. Gates' argument--that he needed an order that was very clear so that it would be clear how Microsoft could implement it in good faith--is a compelling one, and there's no way the Judge can do that in the states' scheme.

Is she really going to design a new operating system based on a different one designed for different circumstances, but with some modifications that she will specify? Perhaps Gates should resign and Judge Kollar-Kotelly should start drawing a salary as chief software architect at Microsoft. Somehow I think even Judge Jackson wasn't stupid or biased enough to do this.

Then there's the "co-mingling of code" issue. The proposed settlement of MS/DOJ/O9S (other 9 States) provides that Microsoft can remove end-user access to certain "middleware" rather than actually removing it. The states are upset about this, although there's no good reason for it. If end users can't access it and OEMs can install alternatives, what's the value in getting upset about the bits still residing on the disk?

Is it the space they consume? Check out ZDNet Shopper: These days you can get 80GB hard drives for about $120. And there's value to the user, if only because the presence of the code may prevent some potential problems with third-party software that requires the missing "middleware."

As a legal matter, according to Hillard Sterling, an antitrust attorney with Gordon & Glickson in Chicago, "[The states] need to show that Microsoft must remove these applications to preserve competition. That point is not coming through loud and clear." I can't imagine a good argument why it would.

Think about a market where OEMs could offer Windows systems in which parts of Windows have been replaced with third-party code. In all likelihood customers would have to rely more on OEMs for support. Information from Microsoft or other parties, like books about Windows, would be less reliable.

And the value of Windows Update--a central site where users may go for updates and patches to Windows--would be diminished. Users would no longer have one place to go for these updates, including security patches. I doubt OEMs would come up with anything as easy to use.

The states also proposed to force Microsoft to license the Office source code to other companies to port to other operating systems, the theory being that Office is a major reason why people buy Windows. (Presumably nobody thinks to buy a Mac to run Office.) Once you accept that it's OK to seize an asset of such great value there's a certain logic to this argument. But once you start to think it through there are plenty of good arguments against it, too.

The first thing I can see is that if your goal is stop Microsoft monopolies, extending its Office monopoly to Linux is a strange tactic. Second, once there are Microsoft and non-Microsoft versions of Office, it's inevitable that incompatibilities will develop between them. Microsoft and the other Office company/companies would have to coordinate their development plans (something seems wrong with collusion as an anti-monopoly tactic) or neither implementation can implement new features.

A much better situation from the competitiveness standpoint would be for other office suites to start gaining market share. The usual line for why they have no chance is file interoperability; Microsoft doesn't publish its file formats. Personally, I think interoperability isn't all that bad as-is. I've written a lot of data format translation code myself, and just because something doesn't translate well doesn't mean you don't know the format of the file. The features of the programs may just not analogize well. So I'm sure there's some excuse-making going on here. But even if this isn't the case, the correct approach would be to insure that Office file formats are made public, not to implement Office on Linux.

The case for simply ordering the proposed settlement seems to be growing.

How do you think the proposed settlement should be handled? Let me know in the TalkBack below.

Larry has written software and computer articles since 1983. He has worked for software companies and IT departments, and has managed test labs at National Software Testing Labs, PC Week, and PC Magazine.

Stay focused: Sign up for Tech Update Today, the daily e-mail newsletter for those who need to know.