EU v. Microsoft
Monday, April 10, 2006
|
|
|
|
Microsoft bashing has become such a popular sport that I fear a positive word or two in this column will result in the confiscation of my keyboard. Still, the latest bit of bluster to emanate from the European Union's Competition Commission, as reported by the Associated Press, is so over the top that it demands a response.
AP says EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes has sent CEO Steve Ballmer a letter saying that Microsoft will not be allowed to sell its new Vista operating system in Europe if it includes certain features. "We're concerned," Kroes told reporters, "about the possibility that the next Vista operating system will include various elements which are currently available separately either from Microsoft of other companies." Kroes cites Vista’s integrated Internet search, digital rights management to protect copyrights and software used to create universal document formats like Adobe's PDF as examples.
Vista is Microsoft's first update to its ubiquitous Windows operating system since Windows XP was released in late 2001. Microsoft's apparent "crime" in the eyes of the Commissioner, is to include new features in Vista. In other words, give consumers more for their money. It is a strange world on the other side of the pond.
The EU forced Microsoft to release a version of Windows XP which did not include audio-visual software in 2004, ruling that the company used its dominant Windows operating system to compete illegally against rivals. Not surprisingly, no computer maker is offering the striped-down version.
That fact doesn't seem to make much of a difference to Kroes, who warns Ballmer, "We assume that Microsoft has its own interests at heart. It wants to launch another product without having to worry about the Commission instituting various actions under antitrust law."
Mr. Ballmer, smart man that he is, hasn't asked me for advice. But why should that stop me? If the EU Commission doesn't want its consumers to have the new, improved Windows, I say, don't give it to them. Let them eat cake.
And there, in a nutshell, is the key to the matter. American anti-trust law tried to do what is best for consumers. The EU seems dedicated to protecting "rival" businesses.
It's as if an automobile maker was not allowed to add features to its cars. Car radios, convertible tops, electronic navigation devices, hi-fi sound systems and mobile phones were all automotive add-ons once offered solely by third party suppliers. What if the U-S government told BMW it couldn't install radios in the cars it sells in the United States? Or tell Airbus that it had to offer a version of planes sold to U-S carriers without avionics so the buyer could install equipment from whatever vender it chose?
What rivals is the EU talking about? American companies including Sun Microsystems and IBM, which are demanding that the EU trust-busters give them something American regulators will not, a Windows frozen in time.
What do they offer consumers in return for a "frozen" Windows? Sun makes great hardware, owns a big part of the server hardware and software markets and its Java system is an important part of key Internet applications. But on the desktop, it has been unable to convince the market to adopt its Solaris or Linux as an alternative to Microsoft Windows and unable to position Star Office as a replacement for Microsoft Office in any significant way, even though these products are virtually given away.
As for IBM, this company gave up on the personal computer market it created, selling its PC business to Lenovo. It had a chance to own big stakes in Microsoft and Intel. It had a great window of opportunity in the 90's with an operating system called OS/2 which was, at the time, better than anything Microsoft was offering. It also had a wonderful group of development products branded Visual Age. Both OS/2 and Visual Age had great features I hadn't seen before and haven't seen since. IBM blew it all in a series of marketing missteps of historic proportion. It's hard to see what IBM has to offer the consumer today.
I am not a Microsoft apologist. I agree with Judge Penfield Jackson's finding that Windows is a "natural" monopoly. That fact should require special behavior from Microsoft, specifically in the area known as "interoperability," so that other company's products can work with Microsoft's Windows desktops as well as Microsoft products do. And Microsoft should not be allowed to use its market power to stifle competition by punishing computer makers who want to sell rival products. Most observers believe the company did do that in the past, but does not any longer.
But beyond that, if Mr. Ballmer wants to offer me new features in Windows at the same price, I am ready, willing and able. Vista is welcome in my house.
