Paul Stephens - IT Journalist and Editor

This article was published in PC Plus issue 135 (Jan 98), and is reproduced here for information purposes only.

Unlike most of the samples on this website, this is NOT the original copy which was sent to the magazine - it's a transcription from the printed page. There were, however, few changes between the two versions.

paul@paulspages.co.uk
www.paulspages.co.uk

Opening news page, PC Plus issue 135 (Jan 98).

The lead story that month was the beginning of the DoJ's anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. Here's my copy.

[BEGINS]

Microsoft is in trouble over Internet Explorer again. Following last month's Java compatibility lawsuit from Sun Microsystems (News Plus, issue 134), the Seattle company is facing an anti-trust suit from the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) over its demand that hardware vendors feature IE on their Win95-equipped systems. The Department is also contesting non-disclosure clauses in Microsoft's contracts which, it claims, hinder its investigations, while the State of Texas has launched a separate action on the same grounds.
                The DoJ's anti-trust action, scheduled for a 5 December hearing in the District Court at Washington DC, centres on Microsoft's insistence that hardware vendors who pre-install Win 95 on their PCs must include an Internet Explorer icon on the Windows desktop, or face having their Windows contracts terminated. This, the DoJ says, violates a 1994 court agreement banning Microsoft from making the supply of Windows conditional on the licencing of other Microsoft products. It's asking the court to impose a fine of $1 million per day on Microsoft until it stops the practice.
                The case hinges on whether Internet Explorer is or isn't part of the Windows operating system. Evidence obtained under subpoena from Compaq, Gateway 2000 and second-division U.S. vendor Micron shows that Microsoft did threaten to withdraw windows licences, in Compaq's case issuing a formal Notice of Intent to Terminate after the company, then in partnership with Netscape, removed icons for Internet Explorer 3.0 and MSN from their Presario machines' desktops. Microsoft, however, is arguing that IE's inclusion was an enhancement to Windows, like the earlier bundling of DriveSpace disk compression, and thus exempt from the 1994 settlement under a clause which allows it to continue developing 'integrated products'.
                The Dol is also asking for confidentiality clauses in Microsoft's Windows contracts to be declared void. These demand that hardware vendors inform Microsoft before releasing details of their dealings to the Government investigators. In a separate action, the State of Texas is suing Microsoft for the same practice. A preliminary hearing was due on 24 November.
                In what looks increasingly like a battle of principles between Microsoft and U.S. Federal and State Governments, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno went on record to say that "Microsoft is unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows monopoly to undermine consumer choice". Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky countered that, "it is a fundamental issue for software companies to be able to design new products without government interference."
                Microsoft is also facing scrutiny from legendary U.S. consumer rights champion Ralph Nader. As PC Plus went to press he was organising a two-day 'Appraising Microsoft' conference in November. Invited speakers included the CEO of Sun Microsystems, Netscape's chief counsel and U.S. Vice President Al Gore, but Microsoft had not yet decided whether to send a representative or not.
                If Microsoft loses the DoJ case, it could be forced to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows. This would cause it severe difficulties with the forthcoming Windows 98 release, which has IE4's Desktop Update user interface enhancements as its standard front-end.

Meanwhile... Microsoft has gone on the offensive in its battle with Java owners Sun Microsystems, which Is suing it for alleged compatibility violations in Internet Explorer's Java Virtual Machine. The Seattle company has now counter-sued Sun for "breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition", alleging that Sun made "repeated false statements about the compatibility and desirability of Microsoft's products." If that wasn't enough to ruin Sun's day, it's also fallen foul of Pendragon Software, which publishes the respected Caffeine Mark Java benchmarks. Pendragon noticed that a beta of Sun's Solaris 2.6 Java compiler scored 1.4 million points against a previous best of 22,000, and called foul. Sun has admftted that it 'optimised' the beta for the benchmarks, and has now withdrawn it.

[ENDS]