http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2556822580-813
08:49 PM ET 10/28/98

Microsoft says others behaved like it

         
          (New throughout)
            By David Lawsky
            WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp.  tried to turn the
tables in court Wednesday, charging that America Online Inc.
engaged in the same type of behavior that prompted the
government to file antitrust charges against the software giant.
            Facing allegations it illegally proposed carving up the
market for Internet browsers with Netscape Communications Corp.
, Microsoft pointed to evidence that AOL and Netscape had
discussed staying out of each other's lines of business.
            The tactic by Microsoft attorney John Warden seemed designed
to raise doubts in the judge's mind about where to draw the line
between market division and strategic alliances.
            The Justice Department and 20 states have accused Microsoft
of using its monopoly in personal computer operating systems to
try and intimidate Netscape into agreeing to divide the browser
market at a June 21, 1995, meeting.
            Microsoft has said it was merely trying to propose a
strategic alliance -- which Netscape rejected.
            On Wednesday afternoon, day seven of the trial, Warden for
Microsoft focused on a Dec. 11, 1995, memo from AOL President
Steve Case that proposed what was described as a strategic
alliance.
            AOL and Netscape feared the clout of Microsoft and
tentatively agreed to work together to combat the larger firm,
which they had dubbed ``the beast of Redmond.''
            Case wrote in the memo that Netscape had promised to
''remain a software company'' and pledged it had ``no plans or
interest in entering the online services business'' for three
years.
            Warden cross-examined AOL vice president David Colburn about
his company's dealings with Netscape and in particular about the
memo, which he suggested amounted to a report of illegal market
division.
            ``In your various meetings with the Department of Justice to
suggest that they go after the 'beast from Redmond', did you
disclose you'd made a market division proposal?'' Warden asked.
            ``Your wording, not mine,'' shot back Colburn. At another
point, Colburn said he ``wouldn't call'' the agreement market
division.
            AOL is the biggest single provider of on-line services, with
more than 13 million customers. It offers its own on-line
environment as well as access to the Internet.
            Earlier Wednesday, Colburn testified that AOL's March 1996
decision to choose Microsoft's Internet browser was done to
compete with Microsoft rather than for technical reasons.
            AOL was facing competition from MSN, an on-line service
owned by Microsoft that the Redmond, Wash.-giant was able to
cheaply promote through an icon on the first screen or desktop
of the Windows 95 operating program.
            In contrast, AOL was having to distribute its software
through computer makers, paying a bounty for each customer it
snared, Colburn said.
            In return for using its browser, Microsoft put an AOL icon
in a ``folder'' on the Windows desktop that contained a list of
Internet service providers.
            In cross examination, Warden tried to suggest that AOL chose
the Microsoft browser because it worked better than Netscape's.
            ``Isn't it a fact that the most important factor in choosing
between Microsoft and Netscape was getting software that worked
with your client?'' Warden asked, using the word ``client'' to
mean the software AOL provided to its customers.
            ``No,'' replied Colburn. ``There were five factors. The most
important in my mind, as the lead negotiator, was securing
parity with MSN.'' He said that the other priorities were, in
order, how much AOL would have to pay, whether the Web browser
would work with the widely distributed Microsoft Windows, its
flexibility of use with other browsers and, last, whether the
technology worked.
            Microsoft Spokesman Mark Murray said on the courthouse steps
there was ``startling new evidence'' the two companies worked
together against Microsoft.
            He said the draft agreement to stay out of each other's
business was ``far more explicit than anything that the
government is accusing Microsoft of.''
            Government lawyer David Boies expressed no surprise that AOL
and Netscape would try to cooperate.
            ``Small companies get together all the time, particularly
when they have to compete against a monopoly,'' Boies told
reporters.
            Colburn's cross examination is due to continue Thursday. The
trial before District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is expected
to last into December.
           
 ^REUTERS@
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Join The Web Consultants Association :  Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to