I supported the DOJ trial in the 90s, but not because Microsoft bundled a browser with the OS. They should have the right to bundle whatever they want with it (including anti-spyware software) if customers will find it useful. The problem was that they also coerced OEM computer manufacturers to not bundle Netscape, which was the dominant browser at the time. Just as Microsoft can bundle whatever they want, so too should the OEMs.

Anti-spyware software falls under the same blanket: if OEMs think Microsoft’s product is good enough, they won’t bundle anything else. If there are products on the market which will protect the OEM’s customers better, then they’ll consider the extra cost and bundle something extra. If Microsoft were to try to leverage their monopoly status and coerce the OEMs not to bundle competitor’s software, the should fall afoul of the Sherman Act (I think) as they did in DOJ vs Microsoft. That seems unlikely though: they have little strategic interest in killing off other anti-spyware manufacturers like they did in owning the web browser market.

I supported the DOJ trial in the 90s, but not because Microsoft bundled a browser with the OS. They should have the right to bundle whatever they want with it (including anti-spyware software) if customers will find it useful. The problem was that they also coerced OEM computer manufacturers to not bundle Netscape, which was the dominant browser at the time. Just as Microsoft can bundle whatever they want, so too should the OEMs.

Anti-spyware software falls under the same blanket: if OEMs think Microsoft’s product is good enough, they won’t bundle anything else. If there are products on the market which will protect the OEM’s customers better, then they’ll consider the extra cost and bundle something extra. If Microsoft were to try to leverage their monopoly status and coerce the OEMs not to bundle competitor’s software, the should fall afoul of the Sherman Act (I think) as they did in DOJ vs Microsoft. That seems unlikely though: they have little strategic interest in killing off other anti-spyware manufacturers like they did in owning the web browser market.

The basic issues are simple:

(1) If it belongs in the operating system, Microsoft should add it to Windows. Many companies have temporarily gotten rich by filling a hole in a larger company’s product line, but they do not deserve that hole to be left open. (The best example is HARDWARE, IBM’s failure, for while, to sell color CRTs with their new PCs in the early 1980′s. Another great example is zipped or encrypted virtual disk drives, which the OS should be able to manage much more safely than a third party product.)

Clearly anti-spyware measures belong in the OS.

(2) It’s very dangerous for one company to assume full responsibility for fighting any enemy, such as spyware companies. Microsoft would do best to figure out how to put basic, rugged capabilities to combat spywiare into the OS, and then let other companies (may the best ones win!) come up with lists of what to identify as spyware.

I would make exactly the same arguments for anti-drm and anti-virus software.
- Precision Blogger PrBl

Had Microsoft built a spyware-safe OS in the first place, there would be no Webroot et al now – there would be no market period for this tool – and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We’d all agree that the functionality was properly included in the OS and all the better if it were offered for free.

So, should the analysis be any different just because it took Microsoft a while to get to it (ie, just a little short of forever in Internet years)? Personally, I’m inclined to think that where the functionality is integral to the OS, or should be offered to consumers as such, it’s fair ball. Though I think I would have a problem if MS both cocked-up its OS, and then used proprietary know-how about the OS and its original mistakes to offer a fix others could not match and for which it charged a premium.

And perhaps there’s another argument here – that if you play right next to an elephant, you are willfully assuming the risk that it may roll over and squash you.

I enjoy your blog a lot, Tim.

Best, Rob