• silicon.com
• Technology
• Hardware

By editorial@silicon.com, 28 February 2001 18:00

COMMENT The only problem is the nature of those pronouncements. The court watchers are basing their opinions predominantly on what's been said of Judge Jackson, whose original decision to split the company in two led to the appeal now under consideration. Judge Jackson was hammered by the judges this week for deciding to break Microsoft in two after only a one-day hearing. That's perhaps fair enough. But the appeal judges really got mad about his many appearances on TV and in print. Certainly, Judge Jackson's bid for the soundbite may have been ill-advised. At one point, he compared Microsoft to drugs gangs. In another interview, he talked of Bill Gates' resemblance to Napoleon. But the real problem is the importance the judges are putting on this. They say this shows he was biased and could not make a well-reasoned ruling. Microsoft execs must be rubbing their hands with glee. In one fell swoop the argument has focused upon Jackson's ability to make a decision, not the rights and wrongs of the decision itself. This process may be aided by the fact that it's easier to understand arguments of this sort than the nitty gritty of the technology. The appeal judges have now gone as far as to question the logic of splitting up Microsoft. Jackson had ordered that one new company would produce Windows, while the other would make other applications, such as the Office suite. The appeals court pointed out that this would leave the operating system monopoly intact. Yes it would - but that's not the point. Microsoft is accused of abusing a monopoly in one market to dominate another. There's nothing wrong with a monopoly per se; it's only illegal when it's abused. Appeal Judge Douglas Ginsburg said: "Couldn't [Microsoft] develop its own internet browser from scratch? Then you'd be back in the same situation we're in now. Stranger still, even after the remedy, Microsoft retains the monopoly." Really? It's highly unlikely that any division of Microsoft would be so clear-cut that the two halves would be encouraged to compete directly with each other. But it would be much easier for other companies to enter the browser market. Besides, if you take Ginsburg's argument to its logical conclusion, there's no point in punishing anyone for anything because remedial action of this sort is no real deterrent. So what do the judges get paid for then? Wherever you stand on the Microsoft issue, the argument does seem to be descending into one of personality and politics. If this continues, the chances of us getting a sound, progressive decision based on the real issues are slim.