The Microsoft Trial
The Microsoft antitrust
trial opened this week, and it wasn't hard to figure out the theme of the
Justice Department's case. "On Day 1, U.S. Targets Gates," declared the
Washington Post 's front-page headline: "Government Portrays Microsoft
Chairman as Cagey, Ruthless." The New York Times called the DOJ's
opening statement "a pointed personal attack on the credibility and integrity"
of Gates. David Boies, the DOJ's lead attorney, focused his statement on Gates,
juxtaposing video clips of Gates' deposition, in which the Microsoft CEO
asserted his innocence, with e-mail messages and memos that allegedly
contradicted those assertions.
For
months, Microsoft has treated the antitrust case as a silly nuisance. Rather
than attack the case the way it has purportedly attacked its competitors, the
company has largely ignored it, instead using its rebuttal opportunities to
proclaim itself a producer of wonderful products and a dogged servant of
consumers. In his opening statement Tuesday, Microsoft lead attorney John
Warden associated the company with "the march of progress driven by science and
technology."
This narcissistic nice-guy act can't go on. In politics,
when you're attacked, you attack back. The Clinton White House has demonstrated
the ugly efficacy of this strategy throughout the Monica Lewinsky
investigation. The first weekend after the scandal broke, Clinton strategist
James Carville went on Meet the Press to declare "war" on Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr. "The real focus here is on the methods [and] motives of
the independent counsel," said Carville. He accused Starr of "wiring" women in
hotel bars and plying them with whiskey. Two days later, Hillary Clinton called
Starr "a politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right-wing
opponents of my husband." This line of attack, pursued relentlessly over the
following months, destroyed Starr's credibility. By the time Starr sent his
report to Congress, polls indicated half the public placed no faith in his
findings.
If
Microsoft was to adopt the Clinton strategy, who would be its logical target?
Let's see. Whom does the DOJ portray as Microsoft's chief victim? Netscape.
Whose 1995 meeting with Microsoft is the centerpiece of the DOJ's case?
Netscape's. Whose notes from that meeting are the DOJ's key evidence? Netscape
executive Marc Andreessen's. Who is the government's opening witness? Netscape
CEO Jim Barksdale. Which company's browser did the DOJ ask Microsoft to offer
to Windows 98 customers? Netscape's. And who has most aggressively lobbied the
DOJ and Congress to prosecute Microsoft? Netscape.
In its Oct. 19 response to Barksdale's written
testimony, Microsoft signaled an increasing willingness to go on the attack.
"Mr. Barksdale's inflammatory comments about the [1995] meeting [are]
misleading and self-serving comments from a company that is trying to attack
Microsoft through government interference, rather than by competing in the
marketplace," charged Microsoft. "Mr. Barksdale apparently believes that
government lawyers know better than millions of consumers, when it comes to
which browser is the best. ... Mr. Barksdale appears to believe that the
government should protect Netscape from the rigors of free market competition."
On Oct. 20, Microsoft's media relations Web page steered reporters to a
Times op-ed that called Netscape "a master of predatory pricing."
Why Microsoft has previously
eschewed this approach is anyone's guess. (
Slate
has no inside
information on this question.) Maybe the company feared it would sully its
image by openly slinging mud at a competitor. Maybe it wanted to deprive
Netscape of all publicity, including bad publicity. Maybe it thought the
antitrust case was legal rather than political and that judges were the only
audience that matters. The best bets are: 1) Microsoft thought itself so
obviously virtuous that it didn't need to defend its conduct. 2) Since
Microsoft understands business far better than politics, it treated the
antitrust fight as though it were just another marketing campaign.
Well, it
isn't. For all its fearsomeness as an economic competitor, Microsoft has yet to
appreciate that the weapons it is now facing--embarrassing memos and video
clips--are the weapons of politics, not of business. Welcome to Washington, Mr.
Gates.
Recent
"Frame Games"
"Clinton's Peace
Therapy": Is the Middle East deal a new chapter or a reminder of Monica?
(posted Wednesday, Oct. 28, 1998)
"St. Matthew": The
political use of a gay man's gruesome death. (posted Friday, Oct. 16,
1998)
