To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://comment.silicon.com/0,39024711,11008635,00.htm

Is Microsoft playing to win?

By Sarah Left

Published: Wednesday 24 February 1999

Microsoft's defence in its long-running saga with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) is becoming increasingly bizarre. Over recent weeks, we've seen defence witnesses supporting the government's anti-trust line. An out-of-touch, confused and uncooperative CEO. Bungled videos. Inconsistent testimony.

A company that has successfully convinced nine out of ten desktop users that the bugs in Windows are perfectly normal, should be able to mount a credible defence, guilty or not.

Microsoft employs 2,000 more people in sales and support than in research and development. Its marketing machine is legendary. Its lawyers are tenacious. There is no excuse for that videotape fiasco.

So why this self-incriminating defence? Increasingly, one explanation is emerging: Microsoft must be taking a dive.

Many in the industry have noted that if Microsoft were, say, split into an applications company and an operating systems company, the net result would be the creation of two Microsofts. And two heads are more powerful than one. No doubt, there would be some overlap in personnel at board level.

And by 'letting' someone else 'force' it into this, it neatly sidesteps shareholder dissatisfaction - if anyone thinks their investment is being jeopardised by this divestiture, they won't be able to launch a class action against a board which has its hands tied by legislation.

Microsoft can rest assured it has created a self-perpetuating monopoly. We all run Windows, and consumers like the simplicity of a single answer to everything, even if that answer is a totalitarian one. Even if the DoJ axe falls, there will always be synergy between the two halves' products.

As the US government struggles on in the cause of consumer protection, besotted customers are still flocking to PC World with one question on their lips: "Does that come with Windows 98?"

The only other explanation is that Microsoft is gambling that the DoJ won't keep up the momentum all the way to the Supreme Court. Appeal after lengthy, costly appeal might dull the government's determination. Bill Gates and Brad Chase could be laughing about this in a couple of years: "Can you believe it? Even after those ridiculous videos, they still let us off with a warning!"

If it's not a dive or a stall, it must be incompetence. And incompetence in a marketing endeavour is impossible to believe of Microsoft.