Microsoft v. DOJ, 10 years later: Did it make a difference?
Ten years ago today, the United States Department of Justice filed a landmark antirust lawsuit against Microsoft. Six months later, Google incorporated in Menlo Park, Calif.
The proximity of those two dates raises a delicious "what if." Knowing how the subsequent decade turned out, do you think the Justice Department would still have gone after Microsoft in 1998?

Former DOJ antitrust chief Joel Klein
(Credit: CNET News.com)I'm obviously asking a rhetorical question. Short of a H.G. Wells' time machine, Joel Klein and his trustbusters had no way to accurately predict tech's Google-centric future. But given the course of the technology industry in the subsequent decade, it's clear in retrospect how little the court battle mattered.
When the government and 20 states filed their antitrust lawsuit, they charged Microsoft with exerting a ''choke hold'' on rivals while denying consumer choice.
The lawsuit we filed today seeks to put an end to Microsoft's unlawful campaign to eliminate competition, deter innovation, and restrict consumer choice. In essence, what Microsoft has been doing, through a wide variety of illegal business practices, is leveraging its Windows operating system monopoly to force its other software products on consumers."
That reads like a blast from the past. I spent the better part of two years watching lawyers for Microsoft and the trustbusters argue before the bench. Beyond the day-to-day, though, this was fundamentally a debate about the future of the desktop at a time when the Windows operating system was under challenge from the Internet.
Bill Gates and his closest managers truly feared what would happen to Windows if Netscape's browser became the preferred conduit to the Internet. The court ultimately found Microsoft guilty of predatory behavior, but the company avoided potentially crippling, worst-case sanctions.
If they ever sat down for a frank off-the-record conversation, maybe Klein and Gates might agree that their fin de siecle confrontation was less significant than it was cracked up to be. All the while, the bigger challenge to Microsoft was being put together in relative obscurity by a couple of Stanford geeks named Sergey Brin and Larry Page.
So, what do you think?
- Topics:
-
Technology,
-
Business currents
- Tags:
-
Microsoft,
-
Justice Department
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us


The most recent would be XP on OLPC. No effort is spared in stopping any O.S. competition at any level.
Somehow the US outcome was vastly different to the European outcome, but even that heavy fine resulted in only slightly modified behaviour.
Money always helps convince politicians to see your side.
I do think that the us case may have convinced the Europeans to take their case to trial.
You never know.
en
It is interesting that the most important issue in the trial turned out to be the communication protocols, an issue that came almost as an after-thought in the settlement. It is still an issue today.
And if Google, Apple and Linux mean anything it is interesting to wonder what the motivation behind the Eu's actions are.
..and I really won't be satisfied with this whole deal until I can.
(1) Microsoft was more concerned with SUN's java at the time
(2) Netscape's browsers were always no less dependent on leveraging Windows for market share than most other extremely popular software
The problem inherent in most anti-Microsoft sentiment is the very wrong idea that only Microsoft profits from Windows. Netscape achieved the success it did on the back of Windows by leveraging Windows, ironically enough. The company simply gave up and quit when Microsoft launched IE, and decided to create innovative propaganda for Congress instead of continuing to create innovative software for the marketplace. The continuing success of FireFox today proves that Netscape made the wrong choice, and it also proves that no matter what Microsoft may bundle with Windows, good 3rd-party software will always successfully compete with Microsoft.
Joel Klein was simply wrong to begin with because Klein, like so many others in Congress, didn't know enough about the subject of software to be able to refute or challenge the accusations Microsoft's competitors made--and make no mistake in thinking that the basis of the DoJ's lawsuit was not independently determined--rather it was spoon-fed the DoJ attorneys by the other parties with a vested interest--Microsoft's competitors. It's bias and taint could be seen for miles.
If people today think that the DoJ's remedies "didn't work" that's only because those "remedies" were based on falsehoods at the time they were instituted. Oh, yea--almost forgot--the official finding by the court at the end of the charade was that although Microsoft had done nothing illegal to obtain its monopoly, it was a monopolist nonetheless. One thing's for sure--if Microsoft was a "monopoly" and Linux, SUN, Apple and IBM "didn't count" as competition (who could forget Judge Jackson scoffing at Microsoft's attorneys when they mentioned Linux?)--then there's no way in hell that Intel is not just as much a monopoly today. Going to be interesting to see where the AMD lawsuit goes.
Interestingly Microsoft is still by far its own worst enemy: Vista, DRM, WGA, keep the hits coming Microsoft!
-
by Randall_Lind
May 19, 2008 5:51 AM PDT
- Really the overturn of the case was by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and his loved for the media spotlight he wouldn't shut up about the case.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>After this basically Microsoft got a miss trial. All the hard evidence was toss out.