Netscape Communications, an AOL-Time Warner property, slapped Microsoft
with a lawsuit on Tuesday, alleging that their business would have taken
over the world had it not been for the monopolistic business practices
Microsoft enacted six years ago. I read the press release Tuesday afternoon wondering if
"Netscape" was the name of a villain from a Scooby-Doo cartoon (also an
AOL-Time Warner property). Yes, a multibillion dollar company is using
the "And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those
meddling kids!" legal defense in a Federal Court. Zoinks, Velma! Like,
load up the Mystery Machine with Scooby snacks, 'cause we're following
the lawyers to Redmond!
Is this how grown-ups do business in the 21st Century? Just days after
the number one mega-multimedia conglomerate desperately denied having
anything to do with a buyout attempt of the number one Linux
software/services corporation; they sue their only real competitor
for allegedly not allowing them to gain more market share. Does anyone
else see the hypocrisy in this? AOL-Time Warner is the number one
multimedia conglomerate, owning an estimated 50 percent of all Internet web
pages according to Jupiter Media Metrix data from 2001. At the first of
the week, AOL was supposedly in talks to buy the number one Linux
corporation in the world, Red Hat Linux, who owns 70 percent of the entire
retail Linux OS market. Talks for that corporate takeover obviously
fell through, but many Microsoft-hating analysts and pundits in the tech
media were gushing over such a deal. The consensus was that with AOL
owning Red Hat, the new owners would pump enough money into the Linux OS
that a new "AOL Linux" could break up (you guessed it) Microsoft's
monopoly! Can you imagine the outrage these same people would express
if Microsoft tried to buy News Corp in an attempt to break AOL-Time
Warner's monopoly in the media?
Forget the hypocrisy for a minute: How absolutely childish is the whole
thing? Netscape, with the backing of parent company AOL-Time Warner,
sues Microsoft for keeping Netscape from being a monopoly in the
Internet browser market. What's next, will the kid who didn't hit a
home run in his little league playoff game going to have his parents sue
the other team's pitcher because the Orioles wouldn't sign him to a
potentially multimillion dollar contract right out of high school? No
kids, that's exactly what it is like, especially when Netscape
hasn't had an "at bat" since about 1996 - the last time Netscape had any
more than a miniscule portion of the Internet browser pie.
Of course, the legions of reactionary Netscape-partisans will
automatically cry about how Netscape is the victim in this case. In
their incredibly childish view of how free market capitalism works,
these Microsoft-haters point out that Microsoft is a convicted
monopolist that tried to shut out Netscape and was rebuked by both Judge
Penfield Jackson's findings of fact and the Court of Appeals ruling that
followed. According to the 412th paragraph of Judge Jackson's findings:
"Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies [like Netscape] .
occur for the sole reason that [other companies and their products] do
not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest." Look, just because you
won the science fair two years ago doesn't mean that the new kid that
was won for the past two years in a row has to step aside and let you
win again! What Marin County new age nonsense school did you go to that
made the most talented sacrifice their rewards so the slackers could
feel better about themselves? Get real, kids.
Let's get the record straight on Judge Jackson before we go any further.
Nicholas Provenzo, CEO of the Center for the Moral Defense of
Capitalism, points out that many of the judge's "facts" paint a picture
of Microsoft as a company striving to make the best products for
consumers and compete in the marketplace. Mr. Provenzo points out that
a quote in the 302nd paragraph of Judge Jackson's findings make the evil
monopolist of Microsoft out to be very good to, of all people, AOL.
Before AOL bought Netscape in 1999, Microsoft beat out Netscape for the
contract to supply AOL with the web browser for AOL's Internet software.
"And in return for AOL's commitment to use Microsoft's Internet
software," says Provenzo, "Microsoft placed an AOL icon on the Windows
desktop, leading more than a million new customers to sign up for AOL.
This agreement prompted AOL to state that its cooperation with Microsoft
was 'an important valued source of new customers for us.'"
This was a
gusty move for AOL because at the time Netscape had a monopoly in the
web browser market with 85% of all Internet users connecting to the web
with Netscape Navigator (at least that's what Netscape co-founder James H. Clark claimed
in the summer of 1996). I guess AOL conveniently forgot about how easy
Microsoft made it for them to sign up many of their 60 million customers
with big blue "Sign up for America On-Line" icons on every Windows
95-Windows 98 desktop when the Netscape team came to them on Tuesday and
said: "Hey, I know it's been six years, but we'd really like to sue
Microsoft for not allowing us to maintain our browser monopoly."
In the end, Microsoft is going to have to defend themselves against yet
another ridiculous lawsuit from childish competitors that don't know the
first thing about free market capitalism. Although they have been
silent in responding to the lawsuit, I hope that Microsoft can bypass
the press and communicate the incredible hypocrisy and immaturity of
their competitors to those that matter most: the consumers.
Email your comments to scott@worldtechtribune.com
<>
