DoJ loses its nerve and drops parts of MS anti-trust case

The US Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer be seeking a break up of Redmond based software giant Microsoft as remedy to its ongoing anti-trust proceedings. To add insult to injury for companies such as Netscape, the US

The US Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer be seeking a break up of Redmond based software giant Microsoft as remedy to its ongoing anti-trust proceedings. To add insult to injury for companies such as Netscape, the US Government also announced that it would no longer pursue allegations against Microsoft of illegally tying Internet Explorer to its Windows line of operating systems.

So, what's left? Internet Explorer is out, and thus so is the main thrust of the case. A break-up of Microsoft is out, so the main punishment is also a non-stater. According to Infoworld, that leaves us with:

'-- A ban on any "adverse actions" against PC makers for supporting competing products.

-- Uniform Windows licensing and pricing terms to manufacturers.

-- Flexibility for PC makers in configuring Windows, including the desktop and boot sequence.

-- Disclosure of application programming interfaces to developers and others at the same time Microsoft discloses those interfaces to its own personnel.

-- Barring Microsoft from knowingly interfering with the performance of any non-Microsoft middleware running on the operating system.

-- A ban on any exclusive dealings, agreements requiring exclusive promotion, for instance, of Microsoft platform software.

-- Establishment of a corporate antitrust compliance officer and committee to ensure the company follows antitrust laws.'

Well, at least that's something. One of the more interesting points in the above list is 'knowingly interfering with the performance of any non-Microsoft middleware'. A prominent example that immediately springs to mind is Microsoft's treatment of DR-DOS. DR DOS was a viable alternative to MS-DOS, way back in the time before Windows 3.1 was released. However, when the Win 3.1 beta was released, it contained code that threw fake error messages when run over DR-DOS – but not when run over MS-DOS, leading users to believe that DR-DOS was incompatible with Windows.

This wasn't an isolated incident. Other examples of this practice include warning messages when running Microsoft C compilers in DR-DOS, and also the total failure of Windows to run when using the QEMM memory manager.

It will be interesting to see if the DoJ takes into account new features in the upcoming Windows XP operating system, as part of current proceedings. Functions such as cd burning, instant chat and a firewall are built into the Win XP OS, negating the need for third party applications to perform these functions. Of course, the likelihood that the Windows XP versions will perform as well as third party applications is low. However, as the majority of home users will only care about price – they've paid for an OS, why pay more for programs that duplicate a feature of their OS – this may not make much of a difference, meaning that a lot of small software developers could find themselves obsolete as home users flock to the built in alternative.

The other really interesting point of note is 'flexibility for PC makers in configuring Windows, including desktop and boot sequence'. Ouch. That one would really hurt, especially in light of Microsoft's recent long negotiations with America On-Line over placement of AOL icons on the default Windows desktop. If this criteria is established, companies would no longer need to gain Microsoft's permission before they could have their icons placed on the desktop – OEM's and re-sellers would have the power to customise the Windows install on new PC's as they saw fit.

Despite these recent developments, don't expect a significant reduction in trial time. Microsoft has a vital interest in minimising any possible restrictions against its modus operandi, and it also has the vast seas of capital needed to back up those interests