May 25, 1998
Is Internet Explorer just freeware?
By Bob O'Donnell
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but the landmark Microsoft/Department of Justice
case filed this week seems to miss a few critical points in examining the manner in which
Microsoft has conducted itself in the computer software industry. Specifically, the case
seems to imply -- but never outright says -- that the company is doing something wrong by
giving away products for which other companies charge good hard money.
And it's not just the Internet Explorer browser. As the legal case points out, it's
also the Outlook Express e-mail program. In addition, there are several other products
that weren't mentioned in either suit that the company routinely gives away or bundles for
free with other products: its Internet Information Server (IIS) Web server package, as
well as SQL Server, to name a few. Interestingly, these products are all in categories
which Microsoft does not dominate.
Now, if these were hardware products and Microsoft were a threat from abroad, it seems
to me you could claim the company was illegally "dumping" them in order to gain
market share, much as some Asian RAM manufacturers have been accused of in the recent
past. Of course those laws don't appear to be applied to software.
But the problem is, there are lots of companies who give away their software, despite
the amount of time, effort, and money required to create it. In fact, I have to think that
the enormous growth and development of the freeware and open source markets would make it
extraordinarily difficult to prove any kind of case involving the free distribution of
software.
But, should Microsoft's size and market position should be taken into account?
Ethically, I believe it should because I think that's the right thing to do, but I'm not
sure if it will matter legally or not. The question seems to be whether giving away
software to extend your product's reach from one category to another is illegal.
The problem here is trying to define the difference between linking other products to
an existing product and simply evolving an existing product, which is not going to be
easy. I have to admit that the one point I side with Microsoft on is that it makes sense
to extend your computer's reach onto the Web and integrate the Internet with your desktop.
In fact, not only do I not have any problem with incorporating the Internet into the base
operating system, I think it's the right thing to do.
However, I'm not convinced that this means you have to use one particular Internet
browser. I see no good technical reason why any other browser couldn't be plugged into the
base operating system's support of Internet technologies and standards. In addition, why
shouldn't alternative desktop utilities/file managers be able to fill this role? If
Microsoft made the appropriate hooks available, it seems to me these types of utilities
could be expanded to look outwards and include the ability to access the Internet for
files, just as Explorer 4.0 can be turned inwards and used to "browse" your
local drives. Both types of products would simply be information access tools that could
go out and get (as well as display) whatever information a user wanted.
Ultimately, I believe Microsoft can and should continue to improve the base
capabilities of the operating system, but I also think this OS product evolution should be
done without forcing users to use a particular browser (or any other type of
Internet-related software, for that matter).
I am reluctant to bite the hand that is feeding me free software. But, on the other
hand, I think Microsoft's role in the marketplace clearly overshadows everyone else's, and
something needs to be done.
©
Copyright 1998, by InfoWorld Publishing Corp., a
subsidiary of IDG Communications, Inc. Reprinted from InfoWorld,
155 Bovet Road, San Mateo, CA 94402. Further reproduction is prohibited.
