Microsoft’s key defense in the Department of Justice suit is that any limitations on its competitive strategy would likely bring to an end all innovation in the computer industry. To support this argument, Microsoft has launched a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign to convince the public that Microsoft is in fact an engine of creativity.
As part of that campaign, in the February 1999 issue of Microsoft Magaziine, which used to be available at http://www.microsoft.com/magazine/feb1999/clear/clear.htm, but has since been removed, Microsoft described a “new” technology for rendering type on a computer screen. The problem with rendering text on a computer screen is that the edges of the characters can appear ragged. This is called aliasing. The article describes a method of fixing this problem (Antialiasing) that uses shaded pixels to make the characters appear smoother.
The clear message of the article is that Microsoft is “...the brain pool that’s making the future of computing...”. The article is very carefully worded to give the impression that Microsoft invented this technology, without ever explicitly saying so. Note the following quotes:
“Microsoft has announced ClearType - a technology that makes on screen type clearer and easier to read”
“...initial research has been focused on fonts...”
“...ClearType is a new way of approaching the legibility issue.”
“Dick Brass, vice president of technology development at Microsoft’s research division, and Bill Hill, a researcher with Microsoft® Research, are responsible for leading the team that developed the ClearType technology.”
The truth is that the technique described in the article, of smoothing text with shaded pixels has been in widespread use for at least fifteen years, and was not developed by Microsoft. A cursory check of the technical literature turned up these articles:
Specific descriptions of this technique as applied to text can be found in such articles as:
The Microsoft article goes on to say “Microsoft hopes to introduce ClearType in 1999...”. They neglected to mention that the Mac OS already had the feature.
As a computer graphic programmer, I am offended by Microsoft’s attempt to claim credit for work they did not do. I just wanted to set the record straight.
- Will Ackel, February 1999
Microsoft hires people to say good things about it on line. It was found that a particularly fanatical Microsoft defender, who goes by the name “Steve Barkto” and who claims to be a technology officer in Oklahoma, actually has his CompuServe bill paid by a Microsoft credit card.
- Source: Brill’s Content
In 1998, as 12 states were preparing anti-trust suits against Microsoft, Microsoft hired PR companies in each of those states to create the illusion of “grassroots” support. The PR firms flooded newspapers and the offices of attorneys general with editorials and letters in support of Microsoft. The letters, signed by member of “the public” were actually written by Microsoft. Payments were handled through Microsoft’s main PR company so that the checks couldn’t be traced.
- Source: The Los Angeles Times
“Microsoft secretly paid for newspaper ads by a California foundation that purported to present the independent views of 240 academic experts who said the U.S. government’s antitrust case against the software giant was hurting consumers...”
- Source: Bloomberg News, September 18, 1999
I don’t remember where I read this one, but as another part of its campaign to convince politicians that Microsoft is popular with the public, Microsoft touted the results of a survey they had commissioned. Later it came to light that Microsoft had informed the PR firm that conducted the survey precisely what they wanted the results to be.
“From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 12:49 PM
...there is one thing that you, as a senior Microsoft employee, can do to help: support the Microsoft Corporation Political Action Committee (MCPAC) ... By giving your support to the MCPAC, you can participate more effectively in the political process that will shape our future. ...
The MCPAC pools the personal contributions of senior Microsoft employees and their spouses to support candidates for federal office. (It is illegal for corporations to contribute directly to the campaigns of federal candidates for office, which is why we formed a PAC back in 1988). This is a non-partisan organization that is essential to building and maintaining critical relationships with Members of Congress. ... Through its ability to contribute directly to candidates, the PAC is an important tool in our participation in the political process.
Last year, the MCPAC grew substantially thanks to the participation of many of you. More than $500,000 was raised so that we were able to help candidates in the 1998 election ... which has provided opportunities to better educate federal policy makers.
Several of us have consistently contributed the annual maximum of $5,000 to the PAC. Your spouse is also eligible to contribute up to $5,000. I urge you to join me in supporting the Microsoft PAC and suggest a contribution of $1,000, $2,500, or the annual maximum, $5,000. ...”
More examples of Microsoft’s sleazy anti-competitive practices can be found in their covert efforts to undermine growing interest in the Linux operating system. Consider this article Microsoft behind $50 million SCO investment, which describes how Microsoft has helped to fund SCO’s lawsuits against companies that sell or use Linux. Or check out an article, titled “To Judge Recent Attack on Linux’s, Origins, Consider the Source” by Lee Gomes in the Wall Street Journal of June 14, 2004. It reveals how Microsoft has funded the efforts of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to try to persuade customers that they might be sued for using Linux, and that Linux is less secure than Windows®. I hope Mr. Gomes and the Journal won’t mind if I quote a few lines:
“An earlier Institute study ... suggested Linux’s openness made it a boon to terrorists. Most security experts say the opposite – that open review makes software stronger and thus safer. It probably wont come as a big surprise that one of the Institute’s funders is Microsoft, now locked in an epic battle with Linux. How much the company gives the Institute is unknown, as neither party will tell us. ... An Institute study issued last month ups the ante in Linux criticism. It tries to prove that ... since Linux is tainted, potential users may one day find themselves in court. How well does the draft study do in making its case? Not well at all. ... Mr. Brown [the Institute’s president] ... never actually talked to the subject of his study.”
The article goes on to show how the study omitted contradictory evidence that the Institute had in its possession.
- Will Ackel, June 2004
These examples have been mostly from the news, so here’s one from my own experience. In 2002 I had two copies of Microsoft Office, one on my computer, and one on my wife’s. But we could never run both copies at the same time. When any Office application was launched on the second computer, you’d get a message saying that the software was already running elsewhere on the network. I reinstalled both copies to ensure that they were each activated with different software keys, and verified same in the About box. I tried putting the original CD’s in the drives before launching to see if that made any difference – no such luck. I search Microsoft’s online help system for clues – nothing. Some time later I read in MacCentral that this was a known bug that could be fixed with the latest patch. So I downloaded the patch and installed it on both machines – no effect. So I figured as a last resort I would have to contact Microsoft support for help. The support page had a link titled “Ask a Microsoft Support Professional for help (Requires Passport)”. So what’s this Passport thing? Like a good little drone, I went to the Passport registration page.
“Completing this form will register you with microsoft.com registration services and with Microsoft® .NET...”
“By clicking I Agree below, I am ... agreeing to the Terms of Use for the .NET Passport Services, and to the .NET Passport Privacy Statement. I understand that if I do not agree to these Terms of Use and the Privacy Statement, I should click Cancel, discontinue my registration...”
So you see, this is just the sort of thing that people hate about Microsoft. They use their monopoly in one area (in this case Office) to extend their monopoly into new areas (.NET). The point is that in order to get support for the products I had already purchased, I was being pushed into signing up for new Microsoft services. To make matters worse, the “AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION” was very long. It would have taken me an entire afternoon to read the whole thing. Nevertheless, I skimmed it enough to verify that it was not anything I would be willing to sign. For example:
“You must accept without modification all of the terms, conditions, and notices contained in these Terms of Use in order to access and use the Passport Services.
Microsoft may wish to update or change the terms, conditions and notices ... you are responsible for regularly reviewing these terms, conditions and notices. Continued access to or use of the Passport Services after any such change shall constitute your consent to such change.
... you must provide information about yourself and update this information as necessary in order to keep it current.
Microsoft is not responsible for any loss that you may incur as a result of any unauthorized person using your account or your password.”
In other words, I would be agreeing in advance to whatever Microsoft might choose to do in the future. So that’s where I left it. I never did get my second copy of Office to work, and I never got a refund for unusable software.
There have been countless articles over the years written
about the unethical business practices of the Giant From Redmond. Just
in case you thought they has changed their ways, here is a
more recent example. An article titled Why Microsoft Battles Europe
Years After Settling With U.S. in The Wall Street Journal for
May 5, 2006 describes the
2004 EU ruling that required Microsoft to do two things: unbundle media
player software from Windows, and document protocols and file formats that
competitors would need to compete fairly
on the Windows
platform. The article describes how Microsoft continued to tell customers
that no version of Windows existed without the media player built in. And
as for the manual:
The article concludes with a quote from Neelie Kroes, head of the EU’s antitrust office:“By December [2005], an outside technical consultant was appointed to review whether Microsoft was doing enough to comply with the 2004 ruling. Under the terms of the 2004 decision, Microsoft offered a short list of candidates for the regulators to choose from, and paid the consultant’s salary. The man chosen for the job, British computer scientist Neil Barrett, delivered a scathing report that backed up the four rival companies. He said the manual featured gibberish text, chapters that didn’t begin or end and links to Web sites that led nowhere.”
“I’m one and a half years in office now, and I don’t have the feeling we are one step further,”