Jewish World Review June 21, 2002 / 11 Tamuz, 5762
James K. Glassman
Technology Back on Track
At long last, the new judge in the Microsoft antitrust case heard closing arguments. The stage is set to end a miserable interlude in high-tech history, in which misguided government industrial policy helped destroy hundreds of billions of dollars worth in assets and distracted the nation's best technical and commercial minds at a critical time.
It all began in 1994, when Microsoft signed a consent decree, pledging not to use its dominance in operating systems illegally to crush competition. Three years later, under heavy pressure from Microsoft's competitors, President Clinton's Justice Department filed a lawsuit. Twenty states joined in, and the initial trial began in 1998. In the spring of 2000, with the trial ending, prosecutors decided to push for a breakup of the company ? a move I predicted at the time in the Wall Street Journal would cause a crash in Nasdaq stocks and touch off a "regulatory recession."
This was not simply a guess. Careful research by economists George Bittlingmayer of the University of Kansas and Thomas Hazlett of the Manhattan Institute had found that "government action against Microsoft appears to inflict capital losses on the computer sector as a whole." That stands to reason since Microsoft has provided programmers and consumers with a low-cost platform for thousands of software programs. Threatening the platform threatens innovation and increased computer use. In addition, when investors see Microsoft in the government's crosshairs, they worry that other companies will be next.
Of course, there were other reasons for the market decline (there always are), but the extreme measures sought ? and at least temporarily won, with Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling in April 2000 ? against Microsoft comprised the central catalyst.
A year ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected the break-up, called for "drastically reduced liability" for Microsoft and asked a new district judge to offer a remedy. The judge told the parties to work out a settlement ? which is what the feds and Microsoft did in November. Immediately, tech stocks rallied. But nine states refused to join the deal, throwing the final result into turmoil and the huge worldwide marketplace for personal computer software and hardware into uncertainty.
Now, the new judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has the opportunity to add stability to the market for high-tech investment and to give consumers and hard-pressed investors (which is to say more than half of U.S. families) a victory. Just as the decision to try to break up Microsoft helped precipitate the high-tech collapse, this new decision ? to adopt a settlement that gives flexibility to computer manufacturers, software makers and end users and has a strong enforcement mechanism ? could produce a market turnaround.
But for Microsoft's competitors the settlement is not enough. From the start, companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Real Networks and AOL TimeWarner had the opportunity to take Microsoft to court on their own, but they preferred to let the federal government (at first) and now the state attorneys general (AG) do their work. Governments, after all, have unlimited legal resources.
The remedy offered by the nine states left in the case is, in a word, outrageous. Under their proposal, for example, Microsoft would have to charge extra for Windows if it includes Microsoft Messenger in the software, while AOL can still give away its popular Instant Messenger to attract new customers. AOL, by the way, "continues to be the 800-pound gorilla in the consumer Internet market," Rebecca Buckman recently reported in the Wall Street Journal. The company has "about 34 million subscribers compared to just 7.7 million for MSN," which is in second place. Plus, AOL, which owns the browser Netscape, would get a free copy of the source code for Microsoft's browser, Explorer. (AOL, a company whose stock has dropped by four-fifths in recent years, is being absurdly short-sighted. If the AGs win this one, won't the "gorilla" make an obvious next target?)
The proposed remedy would also require Microsoft to include a copy of Sun's Java software in every copy of Windows. Microsoft would have to provide its source code for Office applications software to its competitors at an auction price. Plus, fierce competitors like Scott McNealy of Sun and Larry Ellison of Oracle would get a huge benefit: Any time Microsoft wants to make an acquisition, an investment or an exclusive license, it would have to notify the plaintiff's lawyers two months in advance.
It's sad, but these companies decided in the mid-1990s that the best way to battle Microsoft was not in the marketplace but in the courts, state legislatures and Congress. The losers have not merely been investors in Microsoft and other high-tech companies, but consumers.
Antitrust laws, after all, are supposed to protect consumers, not producers, and this case, strangely enough, began because Microsoft was bundling its browser ? for free ? with its operating software and was providing a smooth interface between the two. That decision, along with vast improvements to browser software, created a revolution, and today more than half of Americans are online ? buying, learning, communicating.
But the remedy proposed by the nine states would force Microsoft to remove its "middleware" code from Windows at the request of a computer-maker. Middleware (such as browsers, instant messaging, e-mail client software, etc.) is software that connects an operating system to other software. The result, according to a study by economist Stan J. Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas, would be to load $30 billion to $80 billion in new costs on software producers. Who would pay? Consumers, says Mr. Liebowitz, through "higher prices, fewer choices of software, less certainty that software they buy will run properly."
Balkanization, additional costs, confusion, uncertainty ? those will be the consequences of the settlement proposed by nine state attorney generals, who shouldn't be making antitrust policy in the first place.
It's time to end this costly nonsense and get back to work and to sanity ? back to what Americans do best: innovation, entrepreneurship, investment and, yes, joy in using the fabulous technology that results. High technology left the tracks a little over two years ago; now, a court in Washington has a chance to get it running swiftly and surely again.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.
06/19/02: Star Power?
06/12/02: The Beautiful Line
06/10/02: Squashing broadband
06/06/02: Frank investing advice
06/04/02: Say it ain't so, George
05/29/02: He moves in mysterious ways
05/22/02: Reel in these stocks
05/15/02: It's a "small" world
05/02/02: Japanese stock growth?
04/30/02: Trust the Bells?
04/24/02: Being there is best revenge
04/18/02: I'm a Seoul man
04/16/02: Analyze this
04/09/02: The Dot.Con con game
03/21/02: The companies you keep
02/28/02: Trusting monopolists
02/22/02: How not to get taken when buying stocks
02/06/02: Investing After 9/11
01/30/02: Blue Light Specials? Advice on snapping-up K-Mart or Enron stock
01/24/02: Dare to be obscure
01/16/02: Bank on this
01/10/02: What goes down...
01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks
12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech
12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You
12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts
12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes
11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?
10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No
10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror
10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech
10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the Amazon.com
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap
© 2002, Tech Central Station