IP: Survey says: Hands off Microsoft

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/afternoon/0,1012,1966,00.html


time.com / The Netly News / Afternoon Line / with Jonathan Gregg
May 6, 1998


Vox Populi or Faux Populi?


   The problem for state attorneys general itching to stare down Bill
   Gates and stop Windows 98 shipments has quickly become a terribly
   thorny one. While the gubernatorial-minded AGs could score points with
   voters who respect steely-nerved law enforcement officers unafraid to
   confront titans of industry, just as many voters are sure to be
   annoyed that their elected officials have prevented them from
   upgrading to a newer, faster, sleeker operating system. What's a poor
   regulator to do? Nothing, according to a new survey. Americans by a
   5-1 margin don't want state AGs to block Win 98, the poll by the
   well-respected, bipartisan Hart-Teeter Research firm says. In fact,
   only 14 percent of the public want their AG to "maintain competition,"
   with 77 percent saying that the computer market can do that on its
   own. (Microsoft paid for this survey of 1,002 Americans.) But the
   states may sue anyway, Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the libertarian
   Cato Institute told us this afternoon. "The attorneys general are
   satisfying a different constitutency: Microsoft's competitors," he
   says. "The AGs are coming off what looks to be victory for them in the
   tobacco litigation. They're seeing a second cow out there that they
   may be able to milk." Perhaps. Connecticut attorney general Richard
   Blumenthal assured us yesterday evening that he and the other dozen or
   so state AGs want to file suit in the next two weeks. Microsoft's own
   claim about the dominance of Windows 98 works against it, he said,
   because "some of Microsoft's arguments against government action seem
   to support the view that it is dominant." Which is "all the more
   reason to believe the product ought to be stopped." No word yet on
   whether this survey has make Blumenthal change his mind. --By Declan
   McCullagh/Washington 
   
We Who Are About to Crash Salute You


   Like a Roman emperor looking to burnish his godlike image among the
   little people, Bill Gates came to Manhattan for a bit of bread and
   circus to drum up support for the unimpeded release of Windows 98.
   Bread seems to be the common bond between the 60 or so industry
   representatives present and Bill Gates, who needs only to say "Jump"
   for them to ask how high. So much for the clowns; but this circus had
   little else to offer besides the self-serving wind Microsoft has been
   blowing lately. The staginess of the setting only reinforced the sense
   of false spontaneity, as one beholden company after another pledged
   fealty to Microsoft while representatives of ProComp, an
   anti-Microsoft coalition, were asked to leave the building by security
   guards. Microsoft's claque spoke of dire consequences if Windows 98
   were not released on time, begging the question of why the yearlong
   delay in the release of Windows 95 had not caused any such problems.
   Also untouched was the implication of Microsoft's own argument -- if
   holding up the release is such a disaster, isn't that proof that
   Microsoft has an undue influence in the industry? After testimonials
   from his lackeys, Gates wrapped it up with his standard spiel: That
   the government is trying to stop innovation, and hence the consumer's
   well-being, which apparently takes precedent over the law. He compared
   the compulsory separation of the browser and the operating system to
   that of a radio from a car -- bummer, man, but a car doesn't need a
   radio to run, right? -- when in fact it's the threat of not having a
   motor to put in the car that's won him all this unwelcome attention.
   After his command performance love-in, Gates met with Joel Klein, the
   lead antitrust prosecutor, for a more down-to-earth discussion of what
   might happen if the DOJ goes ahead with its possible new antitrust
   action. Neither side would comment on their discussion. [By
   Jonathan Gregg]


[...snip...]