"Hey buddy," hollered the gruff voice from out of nowhere. "Do you care who the President is sleeping with?" Being that I don't drive, it's not uncommon for me to be accosted by strangers in this manner, as I walk along the streets of San Francisco's Mission district. In this case, the question was rhetorical. Of course I don't care. Who does?
Still, the rather naive outlook of this simple, leading question reminded me of another controversy currently playing itself out in the headlines, one that for me is a little closer to home.
Just as any average homemaker can speak with conviction about Clinton's alleged affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, the current buzz in the computer industry surrounds William H. Gates III and the eventual fate of his company — that most despised of software behemoths, Microsoft.
As with the Lewinsky case, the media have set themselves the task of keeping us apprised of the Department of Justice's antitrust suit against Microsoft, boiling down the salient points into a stew that's easy for us to digest. So much so, that it often seems as if the outcome of the suit is a foregone conclusion. So, for the record, what are the facts in the Microsoft case? What is at issue here?
"That's easy," comes the inevitable response. "They want to destroy Netscape. They've tried to get rid of Java, and QuickTime, and RealPlayer. They want to stifle innovation and control the desktop. Then they want to take over the world.
"Microsoft is evil."
A simple answer, and one you can wrap your head around. And, just like any easy dismissal of the relevance of Lewinsky to U.S. politics, it's totally wrong. Sure, I don't much care who Clinton has sex with, but that isn't the issue anyway. And I'm not ready to buy that Microsoft is the Devil, either.
Good and evil? When did we start talking about software companies in these terms — as if they were characters out of Arthurian legend? Somehow we're expected to envision Sir Jobs of Apple Computer, sword in hand alongside his allies from the courts of Sun Microsystems and of Oracle, leading a valiant battle against bat-winged, fire-breathing Gates as he swoops down from his mountain aerie in Redmond.
Leave aside that Steve Jobs, Oracle's Larry Ellison, Sun's Scott McNealy, and other purported "good" corporate execs actually have much more in common with Gates than do you or I. Aren't antitrust actions really about the ethics of conduct for corporate entities, and not some vague ideals? Jobs is no paladin, and the sprawling Apple campus in Cupertino is no Camelot. We're talking business here.
One business the government is talking to is browser-maker Netscape Communications. Among Netscape's claims is that Microsoft is driving them out of the marketplace by giving away the software giant's Internet Explorer browser for free.
On the surface that seems a valid claim. And yet, going back to the original graphical web browser, Mosaic, browser software has always been free. Even Netscape Navigator, ostensibly a for-profit commercial product before it was officially declared free some months ago, was offered to private individuals for a "free trial period" that never expired. In this battle, it wasn't Gates who fired the first volley.
Netscape further claims that Microsoft's integration of the Internet Explorer browser into the Windows operating system is a ploy to eliminate competing browsers completely. But operating systems have often come bundled with such things as free text editors, free compression utilities, free tools to search and index your hard drive, or even free Internet clients of various kinds. Seldom has this prevented third parties from producing a competing, standalone product. So where is it written that OS vendors can't integrate a rich feature set into their software, if they so choose?
The answer, of course, is that there is no such edict. Too often, these accusations (and others leveled by Microsoft competitors such as Sun, Oracle, and RealNetworks), when analyzed, can be seen as little more than straw men.
Just as the real Lewinsky hearings are more about the possibility of perjury on the part of the president than mere sexual indiscretions, the DOJ is indeed investigating Microsoft for very legitimate and sound legal reasons.
But to Microsoft's enemies, it isn't important that you understand the difference between a bad monopoly and a benign one, or the rules of conduct for a monopoly in the U.S. economy. It's enough for their purposes that you recognize Microsoft is a monster — and this is our chance to chase this beast into the tower and set it alight...or at least chain it up in the basement for a while.
After all, these companies have their own best interests, and their own shareholders, to take care of. If they can't look like heroes, they can at least point out who the villain is.
Of course, the vilification of Gates didn't begin with his current legal woes, and a sampling of a cross-section of the computer industry will doubtless reveal many and varied reasons why Microsoft is seen with distrust or even outright dislike. I shudder to think of the volume of email I'm likely to receive, should I come across as a staunch Microsoft supporter. So, for the record, let me set a few points straight.
I don't use much Microsoft software. I really don't care for Windows, which I find a piss-poor substitute for the genuine article, the Macintosh. Similarly, I often find Microsoft software to be a slipshod imitation of another, pre-existing product. All other factors being equal, given the choice between Microsoft software and another company's offering, I'll probably choose the alternative. And if Microsoft is really seeking to eliminate these choices, then that is admittedly a bad thing.
The problem I have is not with the scrutiny being given to Microsoft's business operations at the present time. I'm all for it. My problem is with the smokescreen.
To trivialize the Independent Counsel investigation of Clinton by reducing it to a question of sexual infidelity is a dangerous thing because it distracts from the real issues, which could have serious implications for the Clinton Presidency.
Likewise, as Microsoft's enemies rally to topple its Windows empire with all the zeal of Abraham van Helsing readying a stake over a vampire's heart, we should stop to consider for a moment. What are the real facts of the case, and what just represents someone else's agenda?
Further, if Microsoft should vanish tomorrow (an unlikely case, no matter what the outcome of the hearings), what would the computer-using public really stand to gain? Might we lose something? Moreover, what might arise from Microsoft's ashes?
If the answers to any of these questions are unclear, can we really afford to assume a foregone conclusion to this latest DOJ investigation? It's time to set aside cartoon characterizations of "good" and "evil." Let's leave the opera to the stage, and the trade regulating to the experts. With luck, the eventual outcome of this inquiry might prove beneficial to all of us: companies, consumers, and yes — even Microsoft.
Bill Clinton's on his own.
