Feeds

MS didn't hurt nobody, and anyway it was scared – defence witness

Richard Schmalensee's deposition is heroic in both scale and, surely, chutzpah

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

High performance access to file storage

Microsoft’s case for the defence began yesterday with a massive 328 page deposition from MIT’s Richard Schmalensee who – as conspicuously telegraphed by Microsoft on many a courthouse step – dismissed the government case as spurious. The core of Schmalensee’s pitch is that we should ignore the vast number of apparently damaging emails the DoJ has painstakingly assembled in an attempt to incriminate Microsoft, and focus instead on the real issue, which is whether or not Microsoft has used a monopoly position to damage its competitors. His argument – note that he is operating as an advocate of Microsoft, and is therefore arguing for the company – is that there has been no measurable damage done, QED there is no case to answer. One might suggest that this is a neat piece of footwork, but not quite neat enough. If we accept the pitch that no damage done equals no antitrust case to answer then we can indeed ignore documentation which indicates plans to inflict damage. But do we want to do that? And how do we decide whether or not damage has been done? These are holes in Schmalensee’s deposition which lawyers should be able to drive large tanks through. He argues that, as the Windows component of typical total system cost is less than 5 per cent, Microsoft’s pricing can’t be judged as being monopolistic. But this is surely a desperate thrust. Windows prices, as Microsoft OEM boss Joachim Kempin has made clear, is not going to go down with the fall in total system prices, so the take has already climbed way beyond 5 per cent. DoJ evidence also shows that Microsoft’s prices have increased over the years, while prices of other software and the base hardware have fallen. For his next trick, he points to what he says is a fundamental inconsistency in the DoJ’s case. It argues that Microsoft is a monopoly which keeps entry costs to its market high, while at the same time claiming that Microsoft is prepared to spend vast amounts of money because it’s scared of, say, Netscape. If it owns the market, why should it be scared? It clearly was scared, he says, and that explains the tone of so many of these emails. Microsoft isn’t a monopoly, and is constantly worried about losing business to rivals. “Microsoft itself was extremely insecure about its leadership in operating systems,” he says. Whilst retaining our usual impartial stance, we at The Register can’t help observing that this is gobsmacking stuff. But onwards and upwards. Schmalensee moves on to Netscape, pointing out that although the government argues that Microsoft has moved heaven and earth to destroy the company, Netscape has managed to increase users of Navigator by 14 million over the past two years, and adds that Microsoft’s requirement that OEMs ship IE with their machines actually increases the choice available to users. An interesting perspective, this. Microsoft’s attempt to flush Netscape out of the market clearly didn’t work anything like as effectively as the company anticipated, because although Netscape’s share has fallen, it’s been a long, hard slog for IE. But we don’t know where Netscape would be if Microsoft’s allegedly anticompetitive actions hadn’t taken place, and the notion that stitching up exclusive contracts and bundling deals amounts to offering more choice is bizarre. Is he drowning in his attempt to execute his pro-Microsoft brief? Similarly he cites AOL’s success and MSN’s failure as proof that placement on the desktop isn’t important, despite the fact that Microsoft’s high command was (and remains) convinced that control of the desktop is vital. AOL seemed to think it was important too, otherwise it wouldn’t have cut that deal with Microsoft that got it placement there in exchange for money and switching to IE. Schmalensee on the contrary says that the desktop isn’t a “particularly important channel of distribution.” Complete Register trial coverage

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Audio fans, prepare yourself for the Second Coming ... of Blu-ray
High Fidelity Pure Audio – is this what your ears have been waiting for?
MtGox chief Karpelès refuses to come to US for g-men's grilling
Bitcoin baron says he needs another lawyer for FinCEN chat
Dropbox defends fantastically badly timed Condoleezza Rice appointment
'Nothing is going to change with Dr. Rice's appointment,' file sharer promises
Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
And just when Brit banking org needs £400m to stay afloat
Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon flying broadband-bot
Apple DOMINATES the Valley, rakes in more profit than Google, HP, Intel, Cisco COMBINED
Cook & Co. also pay more taxes than those four worthies PLUS eBay and Oracle
It may be ILLEGAL to run Heartbleed health checks – IT lawyer
Do the right thing, earn up to 10 years in clink
France bans managers from contacting workers outside business hours
«Email? Mais non ... il est plus tard que six heures du soir!»
prev story

Whitepapers

Securing web applications made simple and scalable
In this whitepaper learn how automated security testing can provide a simple and scalable way to protect your web applications.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
HP ArcSight ESM solution helps Finansbank
Based on their experience using HP ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager for IT security operations, Finansbank moved to HP ArcSight ESM for fraud management.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Mobile application security study
Download this report to see the alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, as well as the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.