Slashdot Mirror
World War 3.0: Microsoft And Its Enemies
Just in time for a possible settlement in the famous case, this book by Ken Auletta, writer for The New Yorker, takes a look at the case from before it's beginning to almost the end. Written in terms suitable for both the non-techhie and non-lawyer, he doesn't do a good job of maintaining reader interest. Chock full of details that deviate and distract from the main theme of book, it was enough such that this reader hasn't touched the book since school started back in mid-August. (The pending settlement gave me the motivation to do this review)
The book details each person involved in the case, everyone from Justice Dept Prosecutor David Boise to Judge Jackson to good 'ol Billy Gates. Every time a new individual is introduced in the story, the book goes off and tells that person's life story, causing some loss of interest and me asking "Get to the point already!"
However, this biographying of each person does have it's plusses. We see a side of Bill Gates the public is not used to seeing. Auletta describes him as a kid who must have everything go his way or else, and how that attitude worked against him in the infamous videotape. We see the pure intellect of Boise in how he had to be kicked out of Boston College's Law School because he was too smart, and how his performance in the 1970s IBM anti-trust suit applies to his superior execution of the MS case.
The book tells how Microsoft handled the initial problem of Netscape, how Gates orchestrated his company into their predicament of investigation by the Justice Dept. Auletta tells why Netscape Navigator was a "middleware" threat to the Windows platform and why Gates and Microsoft acted the way they did in order to keep Windows as a key piece of the Internet. Key point made was that publicly, Gates appeared to have no interest in the threat Netscape was having against his company while internal memos at the same were telling how MS was going to maintain control.
The case itself is fairly well told. Auletta does a decent job of explaining the Sherman Act and how previous anti-trust cases and decisions would weigh in on this case. Key points for the Justice Dept were the famous videotape of Gates repeatedly denying or not knowing knowledge of something being immediately followed by Boise showing an email sent by Gates; the program by Dr. Ed Felton of Princeton that was able to remove IE from Windows without performance loss vs. the poorly performing Windows presented by MS's developers; the infamous line by an MS Exec to a Netscape Exec "we will cut off your air supply;" and the MS Marketing Exec testimony on how MS restricted partners (like AOL) from advertising Netscape on the same webpage as IE.
Auletta does go off at some point telling about the history of anti-trust cases and how many monopoly cases have not lasted much longer than 13-15 years. He tells that by the end of IBM's anti-trust case, IBM was no longer a monopoly, and other examples. Although I havent reached it yet, the last chapter of the book is titled "Microsoft Loses Even If It Wins."
The chapter that really made me lose interest was the one entitled "Nerds In the Bunker." I was expecting a short tale of how geeks (like us slashdotters) were taking on MS with Linux and other open source and free (as in beer) software. Instead, I got a tale of the "nerds" of the press. A chapter on how the press was factoring into the case. MS was distracting themselves by trying to maintain a good public image while at the same time damaging evidence was repeatedly being presented to Judge Jackson, and the few members of the press lucky enough to get passes for that day.
Overall, if you time available to you and have an interest in this story, it may be worth your time to read the book. Sooner or later I know I'll finish it - Thanksgiving and Christmas breaks are comming :)
Final Note: The book covers the story up to last January, yet mentions the February Court of Appeals hearings that were scheduled at time of publication.
You can purchase World 3.0 at fatbrain. The TOC
Chronology
Prologue: Gilded Voctim
Ch 1: The Prosecutors
Ch 2: Hard Core
Ch 3: The First Pitch
Ch 4: Opening Salvos
Ch 5: The Government's Story
Ch 6: Microsoft's Hole Gets Deeper
Ch 7: Spin
Ch 8: The Real Bill Gates
Ch 9: Children At Play
Ch 10: Elephants and Mice
Ch 11: Micorosft's Witnesses Speak
Ch 12: Nerds In The Bunker
Ch 13: Spring Break
Ch 14: Exile
Ch 15: The Trial's Final Innings
Ch 16: The Trial Pauses, The Planet Doesn't
Ch 17: Judge Jackson's "Facts"
Ch 18: The Mediator
Ch 19: Disconnect: Washington, DC, vs. Redmond, Washington
Ch 20: Davos, Again
Ch 21: So Much Effort, So Little Result
Ch 22: Remedy, And Appeal
Ch 23: Microsoft Loses Even If It Wins
Glossary
Acknowledgements
Bibliography
Index
Why do people constantly perceive Microsoft as being the enemy in situations such as these? For the last time, Microsoft is NOT the enemy in the software wars.
Closed source is our enemy. Narrow-minded software is our enemy. Bad PR and buggy releases is our enemy. Unstable programs is our enemy. Limiting the decisions of users is our enemy. The practice of eliminating competition is our enemy.
Windows is not a BAD operating system, it's simply an inferior one put out by a company obsessed with the prospect of being the only operating system on the market. We don't need to fight Microsoft, we only need to fight that mentality.
My two cents.
-Evan.
It's about eight months out of date now, but has decent background.
The last 8 months can be summed up briefly in a dialog:
DOJ: Bad company!
MS: No we aren't.
DOJ: Yes you are.
MS: No we aren't.
Judge: Yes you are.
MS: Well, maybe, but not that bad.
Appeals Court: Actually, you were, but so was the Judge.
MS: Ah ha!! So the trail was unfair.
Appeals: Well, not quite. You're still bad.
DOJ: We can't tell who's bad anymore.
MS: Definitely not us.
DOJ: Hmm.. You're not? Ok, then. Maybe it's us that's bad?
State AG's: Excuse me?
MS: We will punish ourselves dearly, by selling coc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonating software to the schools. By "donating" we understand something else than what those misleading dictionaries taught you...
a) David Boies
b) I believe reviewers should finish the book or not review it. If the book is so abominably bad that it just cannot be finished, that should get a 0 score.
c) It is Ken Auletta's style to include biography as the linchpin of his chapters. That doesn't mean you're wrong in not liking it. I would suggest that businesses always conflict. Technology happens. Only the people provide whatever uniqueness there is to human events.
d) Auletta has an interesting thesis, that if Microsoft had proudly admitted its philosophy and practices are all or nothing, and explained the basis in the context of their experience, it would not have angered the Judge (I simplify a bit). Whether one agrees with that or not -- its veracity as a business philosophy or its effectiveness as an alternative judicial strategy -- it was Auletta's reporting of the Judge's thinking during the trial that provided the basis for the Appeals Court to remove Judge Jackson. As a primary document in the narrative that extended past the book's publication, I would rate this book more highly.
...about how biased the judge was, this is the book to read. This is the book which was used by Microsoft to portray the judge as biased.
The judge compared specific acts of MS execs to specific acts of organized crime figures. Microsoft PR put out a press release which accused the judge of saying they were like gangsters. The press picked this up and it became accepted as fact that the judge said the biased things which MS PR attributed to him.
So, if your friends make wild claims about how biased the judge was, get this book and read the actual things which he said and how they were actually reported. You will be able to respond with the actual facts (since this is the place they were reported, without the MS-influenced misreporting). This is the primary source on the judge's statements. The judge talked to Auletta throughout the trial under the condition that his comments not be published until after it was over. He was talking about what his reactions to each piece of evidence were and what his reasons for those reactions were.
Judges are paid to evaluate what they are hearing based on the evidence in front of them. This is not bias. To report exactly what those reactions were and how they were based on what happened in court should be considered as useful insight into the system, not as a way for a criminal enterprise to dodge its responsibility for its actions.
Anybody who tells you the judge said something different than what he said in this book can be shot down with finality.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.