Middleware front and center in DOJ settlement

The (proposed) settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft makes a big deal of "middleware" and its role in Windows. Back in the early 90's I remember the term middleware coming into use mostly to describe intermediary programming layers for databases (ODBC is the original and most successful database middleware). It was very important, but it was all relatively low-level programmer stuff. Now it turns out that much of our end-user software is actually "middleware." Thanks to the settlement, browsers and music players and even instant messaging applications are now considered middleware.

The goal of the settlement is to make interfaces in Windows well-defined enough so that OEMs can add a non-Microsoft middleware product as the default and it will just work. The original judgment by Judge Jackson required not only that OEMs be allowed to use non-Microsoft middleware but that they be allowed to remove the Microsoft version, and reduce their license fee by the same percentage of bytes that the Microsoft code had consumed in Windows. Removing this profoundly stupid notion that software is sold by the pound is one of the big improvements in the proposed settlement as opposed to the original judgment. The settlement also allows for the displaced Microsoft versions of code to remain on the installed system, to be reactivated by the user should they so choose.

So, what will this really mean? Will you really be able to buy systems with big chunks of Windows replaced by non-Microsoft products? In fact, after reading the settlement I tend to doubt it will have much meaning for corporate buyers and users. The settlement reads as if it were written almost entirely to protect the interests and flexibility of OEMs. The presumption underlying this (this is my guess) is that giving the OEMs maximum flexibility will encourage software competition because OEMs will want their installations of Windows to be different from each other: thus, competition.

It's my impression that most large companies customize their configuration of Windows to a corporate standard, so the OEM configuration decided upon by Compaq as opposed to IBM is largely a non-issue. You're probably using your own Windows volume license, so you may not be licensing any of that non-Microsoft middleware anyway. Of course, you have your own "middleware" that you've bought and installed, and perhaps the settlement's rules for greater disclosure of programming interfaces to ISVs will help these products to work better.

If you've built your middleware products in-house, it's not clear to me that you get the same special access. The settlement says that "...Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product." The reference to MSDN or similar mechanisms makes me think that these would have to be publicly available sources of information, and not under restricted terms like a non-disclosure agreement. But most corporate developers don't fall under the definition of ISVs or the rest of the alphabet soup in the definition above, so the issue looks unclear to me.

If the main takeaway for corporate IT is that the settlement should foster an environment in which non-Microsoft software functions better under Windows, then I think we shouldn't expect much to change. It's been years since undocumented APIs have been a really big deal to ISVs. As far as hostile middleware goes, Microsoft's competitors can be as inconsiderate as anyone when it comes to stealing file associations and otherwise messing up third-party stuff. Opt for the Netscape Navigator's installation defaults and it will change the default search page in Internet Explorer to Netscape's Web site, and RealPlayer will take every sound-related association away from every other program, and constantly inserts itself into the system tray no matter how many times you tell it to go away.

Don't get me wrong, I never thought much of the case against Microsoft so I'm relatively happy with the settlement. Microsoft will have to report to a three-person technical committee and create a new internal Department Of Finking On Microsoft to create leverage for disgruntled employees. But overall, considering the cruel and unusual punishments Judge Jackson casually imposed, Microsoft got off pretty light.

At times like this, it's appropriate to return to my favorite truism of the software business: you have options. Don't like the new version? Don't upgrade. Don't like the way Windows works? Try UNIX. Try Linux. Try Macintosh. They're not acceptable? Then perhaps Windows isn't such a bad deal after all.

What's your take on the DOJ and middleware? E-mail Larry or post your thoughts in our Talkback forum below.