Comments on: Microsoft v. DOJ, 10 years later: Did it make a difference?

Knowing how the subsequent decade turned out, do you think the Justice Department would still have gone after Microsoft in 1998?

[BigTreeMan]

Making the largest corporate donations to the Republican party has paid off well. The antitrust was watered down and has had minimal effect on Microsoft's behaviour.

The most recent would be XP on OLPC. No effort is spared in stopping any O.S. competition at any level.

Somehow the US outcome was vastly different to the European outcome, but even that heavy fine resulted in only slightly modified behaviour.

[Sikosis]

Yes well ... if only the DOJ had the balls to split MS into two companies -- both MS and the IT industry would have been better off. 10 Years later -- did it make a difference ? Nope. Not one bit.

[mikalg]

What in god's name are you even talking about?! Split into two parts? What two parts? Do you think Microsoft has ANYTHING to do with "Ma-Bell" in the past? Your ignorance is staggering!

[eldernorm]

The case brought much of what Microsoft was doing to the public light. Its too bad that after finding them guilty, Microsoft was able to bribe a federal judge to overturn the original rulings because the judge was so outraged at the illegal behavior shown by Microsoft before and during the trial.

Money always helps convince politicians to see your side. :-(

I do think that the us case may have convinced the Europeans to take their case to trial.

You never know.

en

[mikalg]

Bribes? I suppose you think aliens have abducted you too.

[1noce]

bribe "a" federal judge? It was the federal appeal court!

[1noce]

The DOJ trial certainly made Microsoft a more prudent company. Ask anyone working in a business unit at Microsoft how they feel when the AT attorney shows up...

It is interesting that the most important issue in the trial turned out to be the communication protocols, an issue that came almost as an after-thought in the settlement. It is still an issue today.

And if Google, Apple and Linux mean anything it is interesting to wonder what the motivation behind the Eu's actions are.

[Galaxy5]

Microsoft and The Republicans did the same thing: they ran out the clock against the Democrats, and they won.

[ethana2]

I still can't walk into an Office Depot and buy a laptop running linux.
..and I really won't be satisfied with this whole deal until I can.

[EcuadorHomesOnline]

Excellent post - I agree wholeheartedly!

[Walt Connery]

Problem with the notion that "Microsoft feared Netscape" is two-fold:

(1) Microsoft was more concerned with SUN's java at the time
(2) Netscape's browsers were always no less dependent on leveraging Windows for market share than most other extremely popular software

The problem inherent in most anti-Microsoft sentiment is the very wrong idea that only Microsoft profits from Windows. Netscape achieved the success it did on the back of Windows by leveraging Windows, ironically enough. The company simply gave up and quit when Microsoft launched IE, and decided to create innovative propaganda for Congress instead of continuing to create innovative software for the marketplace. The continuing success of FireFox today proves that Netscape made the wrong choice, and it also proves that no matter what Microsoft may bundle with Windows, good 3rd-party software will always successfully compete with Microsoft.

Joel Klein was simply wrong to begin with because Klein, like so many others in Congress, didn't know enough about the subject of software to be able to refute or challenge the accusations Microsoft's competitors made--and make no mistake in thinking that the basis of the DoJ's lawsuit was not independently determined--rather it was spoon-fed the DoJ attorneys by the other parties with a vested interest--Microsoft's competitors. It's bias and taint could be seen for miles.

If people today think that the DoJ's remedies "didn't work" that's only because those "remedies" were based on falsehoods at the time they were instituted. Oh, yea--almost forgot--the official finding by the court at the end of the charade was that although Microsoft had done nothing illegal to obtain its monopoly, it was a monopolist nonetheless. One thing's for sure--if Microsoft was a "monopoly" and Linux, SUN, Apple and IBM "didn't count" as competition (who could forget Judge Jackson scoffing at Microsoft's attorneys when they mentioned Linux?)--then there's no way in hell that Intel is not just as much a monopoly today. Going to be interesting to see where the AMD lawsuit goes.

[rcardona2k]

Apple was in the dark ages ten ago, what a difference time makes! iPod+iTunes+iPhone was born and has become a decent rival to Microsoft. Macs on x86 - amazing.

Interestingly Microsoft is still by far its own worst enemy: Vista, DRM, WGA, keep the hits coming Microsoft!

[henebry]

I suspect that Microsoft would have acted more aggressively toward Google, had there been no lawsuit. Even though Microsoft wasn't really punished for past misdeeds, it was *distracted* in a big way for about five years, years which were crucial to the growth of Google.

[Randall_Lind]

Really the overturn of the case was by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and his loved for the media spotlight he wouldn't shut up about the case.

After this basically Microsoft got a miss trial. All the hard evidence was toss out.

[JCPayne]

I hope this never passes anti-trust muster because Verizon ONLY offers 1) Yahoo, 2) MSN & 3) AOL over their DSL network... Allowing 2 of those 3 to merge would be anti-competitive...

[georgiarat]

I guess Microsoft was bad then for having contributed more to Republicans and good now for the vast contributions to Democrats. Actually it was Microsoft money that put the two Democratic Senators in place in Washington.

[Thomas, David]

What was it they said money can't buy? I can't FRACKING REMEMBER!

[johnferguson]

Another sad legacy for the Bush era.

[JDGDOIT]

Actually, it is interesting in the fact that, as you read the attacks and disparaging statements about Microsoft now, as well as the anit-trust attention of the government, you could go back twenty-five years and hear and read nearly the very same things about another supposed monopolist - IBM. I believe IBM is probably more relieved every day that Microsoft has replaced them as the computer boogey-man.
I believe this same cycle will repeat over the next ten to twenty years with Google. As their voracious absorbing of everything electronic will eventually lead to them becoming the bad guys and Microsoft simply being one of the side players, glad to be out of the spotlight of vicious public attack.

[JCPayne]

How can google be a monopoly? Anybody can startup an ad network with venture capitol... Building an Operating system on the other hand esp. when Microsoft tells PC makers "You can't work with me if you make PCs with another O.S." is a completely different kettle of fish.

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

Have to agree that Gogle will become the nxt boogeyman. After all, just being 'Green' as the company is trying to promote itself as becoming in total is hard. Just ask Kermit the Frog. Miss Piggy keeps trying for him. Actually Microsoft intoduced IE as an alternative, and it was the most widely adopted due to lack of interest in other Browsers at the time. But Yahoo, AOL, Linux, Google show apptitude for being alternatives.
The problem arises when people find that the functunality isn't quite as good. At least that's been my personal experience. It's much like anything else. If I find a product that works I use it. I try others and decide which is best. It's like taking new cars for test drives. Just go around the block and there ain't much difference. Use the car for two or three days, each car, and you can make a better comparison.I like Microsft products, they work, are easy to learn new features. And besides, Google isn't the biggest competitor Microsoft has. It's IBM. While Microsoft runs scared of Google and tries to be it and itself, IBM makes the type of inroads it could never have before Redmond got really scared.

[Mr. Dee]

Well, it changed a lot of persons perception of Microsoft and brought about bad reputation for the Company over the past ten years. Monopoly became the big word that was most associated with Microsoft. But a lot of innovation did come out of Microsoft's predatory behavior, it killed Netscape from which Mozilla web browser was derived and eventually evolved into Firefox. Other technologies like OpenOffice.org also came into existence as the fear of the monopoly was so much a concern.

But, did it really make a significant impact? Windows is still the dominant operating system, Microsoft Office is still the dominant productivity suite? It did make developers invest in new paradigms and sort after new territory where Microsoft never felt any interest in. Search, Ad Sense, Social Networking. Areas people are looking at as the main focus for innovation going forward.

[t8]

With regards to the "Problem with the notion that "Microsoft feared Netscape" is two-fold:" comment. Your mention of Firefox's success as to where Netscape could be is wrong for a number of reasons.

1) Downloading a browser on a 14.4 modem wasn't realistic.
2) Bundling Netscape was banned by Microsoft through exclusive deals with OEMs.

So Netscape was only ever going to become the browser for those who could be bothered getting a copy and who didn't want to use the default browser which was IE.

Put yourself in Netscapes position. They were muscled out of just about every distribution channel possible. Microsoft saw to that one and did a pretty good job to.

I always think comments like yours are quite sad and wonder what you would be saying had you been the guy who invented the browser and then watching it being taken off you by an aggressive 40 ton gorilla of a company who stopped your every move with bribes, lock in contracts, and other practice that you could do nothing about.

Make no mistake about it, the browser war was extremely important and even Google fear Microsoft's dominance in browsers.

But as for justice, you have to feel for the small but innovative guy who had a great future, but was snuffed out.

Anyway what Netscape was going to do for the Web is pretty much covered by Google now. So you can kill a company, but not the idea.

[JCPayne]

To t8: Also don't forget as recently as 10 years ago whenever you installed an ISPs software it automatically made IE the default.... If you installed Earthlink, you got an Earthlink branded version of IE. If you installed Verizon, you got a Verizon branded version of IE and so on. If you wanted support from the ISP they would always refer you back- to using the IE browser that they bundled with their software.... If ISPs today installed Mozilla or FireFox as the default browser now-a-days I think it would make **SIGNIFICANT** inroads into the Microsoft domination of the web with IE....

[shusseina2]

Unfortunately, the trial came too late as the damage was already done. The witnesses for the prosecution was a who's who of the IT industry - Sun, Apple, IBM, Netscape, etc, etc.

It is clear that Microsoft abused their position in the industry to stifle competition and innovation to the disadvantage of all IT users.

I don't believe the change it the IT landscape makes the DOJ's lawsuit meaningless, though it did come too late and it did not have enough political will behind it. While I am sure there are other contributing factors, it is no accident that today Microsoft faces stiff (and healthy) competition from the likes of Google, Apple, Adobe, Linux vendors, etc. This not only good for all users of IT, but it should push Microsoft to push the envelope and innovate further.

I look forward to the innovation that is now possible from companies such as Google, Amazon, Saleforces.com, Apple and countless others...including Microsoft.