MS's refutation of Netscape allegations
Tim Gerchmez
In the interest of fairness to Microsoft (Netscape's allegations have
been posted), I hereby post MS's refutation of Netscape's allegations.
I hope you will read it with the same lack of prejudice that you read
the Netscape allegations, and make up your own mind about who is right
and who is wrong. My opinion is that most of the Netscape allegations
are false, and that all of this is simply two companies at war with
each other.
The following is (C) Copyright 1996 Microsoft Corp. All Rights
Reserved, and is reprinted according to the notice available at
http://www.microsoft.com/misc/cpyright.htm. If there are formatting
problems in the text below, they are mine and not Microsoft's.
NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE
Permission to use documents and related graphics available from
this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the above
copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright
notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of documents and
related graphics available from this Server is for informational and
non-commercial or personal use only, (3) no documents or related
graphics available from this Server are modified in any way, and (4)
no graphics available from this Server are used separate from
accompanying text.
Microsoft Responds to Netscape Letter to Justice Department
August 22, 1996
STATEMENT
It will come as no surprise that Microsoft is competing intensely with
Netscape and many others in thedevelopment and marketing of
Internet-related technologies. Coming from behind, we are devoting
substantial resources to developing a wide range of innovative
technologies that are cross-platform and based on open
Internet standards. By working with many partners and customers and
delivering superior products to the marketplace, Microsoft hopes to
bring tens or even hundreds of millions of new computer users onto the
Internet and contribute to making the Web much richer, more dynamic
and more useful. We believe we took a great step forward with the
August 12 release of Internet Explorer 3.0, our full-featured Web
browser, which has received an enthusiastic consumer response (more
than 1,000,000 people downloaded Internet Explorer 3.0 in the first
week that it was available) and has won very favorable reviews in
head-to-head comparisons with Netscape Navigator.
Netscape’s August 12 letter to the Department of Justice--and its
decision to release the supposedly "confidential" letter to the media
earlier this week – is a transparent attempt to divert attention from
our progress. The letter is a calculated attempt by Netscape to enlist
the government and the media in its marketing campaigns. (Click here
to view a Financial Times editorial.)
Netscape’s letter consists of a series of wild and irresponsible
allegations that have no basis in law or fact. The gist of the letter
– that Microsoft is seeking to "restrict consumer choice" in Web
browsers – is bizarre in light of Netscape’s oft-repeated claims that
its browser, Netscape Navigator, is used by approximately 85% of
all computer users accessing the World Wide Web and is one of the most
successful software products of all time. Navigator is certainly very
"accessible" to consumers: Netscape trumpets the claim that every day
another 150,000 copies of Navigator are downloaded from its Web site.
Microsoft’s progress is the result of hard work, product
improvement, mutually beneficial partnerships, and creative marketing.
The vigorous competition between Netscape and Microsoft has led to the
availability of better browsers, attractive promotions for consumers
and improvements in the Web experience at a dizzying pace – with no
let up in sight. But now Netscape is seeking government aid to protect
it from the competitive challenge that Microsoft poses to its position
in Web browsers. That is exactly the opposite of what the antitrust
laws are all about.
As shown below, the allegations contained in Netscape’s letter
are without merit. Microsoft adheres strictly to all legal
requirements, including those in the 1994 consent decree.
BROWSER DISTRIBUTION THROUGH PC MANUFACTURERS
Netscape claims that Microsoft offers OEMs a $3.00 discount on
Windows 95 if the OEM agrees to makecompeting browsers "far less
accessible to users." This is false. OEMs who license Windows 95 for
installation on new PCs are entirely free to ship any other software
they like on those machines, without any effect on their Windows 95
royalties to Microsoft. There is not and has never been any $3.00
discount for making competing browsers "less accessible." OEMs are
free to place icons for other software products on the Windows 95
"desktop" or on the Windows 95 programs menu, where they will be
easily accessible to computer users.
Also false is Netscape’s claim that some PC makers are prohibited
from carrying Netscape Navigator under their license agreements with
Microsoft. Click here to view letters from OEMs who refute Netscape's
claim. Hitachi has publicly denied Netscape’s allegations concerning
the company. Hitachi has explained that it has never "refused" to ship
Navigator or any other software product due to any provision in a
Microsoft license and that Hitachi is always free to choose the best
software available to meets its vision for computer users. Hitachi has
confirmed that, in fact, it ships both Netscape Navigator and
Microsoft’s Internet Explorer with its notebook computers today.
BROWSER DISTRIBUTION THROUGH INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Microsoft is working hard to compete with Netscape in the
distribution of Web browser software through Internet Service
Providers (ISPs). Although Netscape still has a significant lead, we
are making progress because of the widely-recognized quality of
Internet Explorer 3.0, the improvement in our Macintosh and
Windows 3.1 browser offerings, the development path we have set out
for future versions of Internet Explorer and related Internet
technologies, and our flexibility and willingness to enter into
business arrangements with ISPs on more favorable terms than those
offered by Netscape.
Netscape complains that Microsoft is offering ISPs leads for
potential new customers in exchange for agreements by those ISPs to
distribute Internet Explorer to many of the customers who sign up ISP
service as a result of the Microsoft-provided lead. That is a strange
allegation because (a) such cooperative marketing is perfectly
sensible and legal, and (b) Netscape is doing it too.
To make it easy for computer users to get hooked up to the
Internet, Windows 95 will soon include a feature that offers computer
users the opportunity to sign up with various ISPs who service their
geographic area. The ISP will pay Microsoft a small fee for each
customer who signs up for Internet service via this arrangement.
Although the terms of the agreement vary, the ISP generally also
agrees to distribute Microsoft’s Internet Explorer as its preferred
browser to customers who come to it through the Microsoft connection.
In other words, if Microsoft helps an ISP secure a customer, the ISP
will generally do likewise for Microsoft.
Significantly, however, these agreements do not obligate ISPs to
distribute Internet Explorer exclusively (although we know that many
ISPs currently ship Netscape Navigator exclusively). Thus Netscape’s
claim that Microsoft has offered ISPs "side payments" "on condition
that they will not sell any Netscape or other Internet software" is
false. ISPs may distribute competing Web browsers, such as Netscape
Navigator, even to customers who sign up with them as a result of
leads provided by Microsoft. Furthermore, these customers can very
easily switch to different browsers at any time, and switch again as
often as they like. Netscape Navigator is very easy to find and
download on the Web: literally tens of thousands of Web sites contain
advertising that solicits consumers to download Netscape Navigator.
Microsoft knows well that distribution over the Internet is a very
effective means of distributing browsers: as noted, more than
1,000,000 people downloaded Internet Explorer in the first week that
it was available on the Web. Consumers will choose and use the
browser--or browsers--that best serve their needs.
Netscape’s complaints about Microsoft’s arrangements with ISPs
are not only unfounded (because there is nothing wrong with such
arrangements), they are also hypocritical: Netscape itself has entered
into the same types of arrangements with ISPs. Netscape offers ISPs a
chance to obtain customer leads through the retail version of Netscape
Navigator in exchange for payments to Netscape (we believe) and
promises to ship Netscape Navigator as the ISPs’ preferred browser. In
fact, we believe that Netscape has recently started to insist that
ISPs who distribute Navigator pay financial penalties to Netscape if
the ISP later decides to ship Microsoft’s Internet Explorer as well.
There are literally thousands of ISPs in the world. Microsoft and
Netscape are vigorously competing now to enter into agreements with
these ISPs to promote their businesses. This is exactly what
competitors like Microsoft and Netscape are supposed to be doing under
the antitrust laws – to the obvious benefit of consumers. Indeed, many
ISPs have told Microsoft that Netscape has begun to offer better terms
since Microsoft began offering its browser to ISPs. In any event, the
ISP channel is only one of many channels for distributing browsers so
there are many opportunities to distribute browser software to
consumers without using the ISP channel at all. Certainly Netscape
does not lack vehicles to promote its products – with 85 million hits
per day, Netscape claims that its Web site is the most widely visited
in the world.
WINDOWS NT SERVER AND WINDOWS NT WORKSTATION LICENSING
For customers seeking an operating systems on which to run server
software, Microsoft offers Windows NT Server, which is designed and
tested for use as a server platform. For customers seeking an
interactive workstation operating system that will also support
limited peer services (such as file and print sharing and peer Web
services), Microsoft offers Windows NT Workstation with these
capabilities under a limited use license at a lower price point.
Netscape’s apparent suggestion that Microsoft should not be able
to offer different versions of its products intended for different
uses under different licenses and at different prices is unheard of –
this is standard practice in the software industry and intellectual
property licensing generally. For example, Netscape’s license for
Navigator does not permit any concurrent use of that product even
though the software easily could be used concurrently. And the
Navigator license provides that Navigator may be used on a network
only if the user pays for each licensed connection, even though
unlimited connections are technically possible.
Similarly, Netscape’s license for LiveWire Pro (its Web site
management and applications development product) permits only 32
connections to the Developer Database when it is incorporated into a
software developer’s application, even though the Developer Database
could easily support more than 32 connections.
WEB SERVER APIS IN WINDOWS NT SERVER
Microsoft has not used "secret" APIs in Windows NT Server, and
Netscape knows it. Netscape is apparently referring to the AcceptEx
API, a matter which was discussed in recent correspondence between
Netscape and Microsoft.
As shown in Microsoft’s reply to Netscape (email dated August 15
from Microsoft’s Paul Maritz to Rick Schell of Netscape), Netscape is
mistaken as to the timing of the development of the AcceptEx API. The
AcceptEx functionality was created by developers at Microsoft working
on our Web server technology, Internet Information Server in the late
summer of 1995. The technology was not sufficiently developed in time
to be utilized in the first beta release of Internet Information
Server (IIS), which occurred on August 28, 1995.
Following this beta release, the IIS developers decided that it
would be a good idea to implement the AcceptEx functionality as an API
in Windows NT Server API that all software vendors could take
advantage of.
This was done in the fall of 1995, and fully documented publicly
in the very next release of Windows NT Server, which was Service Pack
3.0, released on December 5, 1995. A representative of Microsoft
telephoned Marc Andreeseen personally to advise him of new
functionality in Service Pack 3.0 that Netscape might want to utilize,
and Microsoft delivered Service Pack 3.0 to Netscape by overnight
courier. (Microsoft’s IIS first implemented the AcceptEx functionality
in its second beta release, which occurred on November 15--just
three weeks before the functionality was publicly documented.)
Therefore, it is not true that Microsoft’s IIS developers were
"given" these APIs "months" before the rest of the industry. Rather,
the IIS team at Microsoft were the developers of these APIs and, upon
development, they promptly shared them with the entire industry.
Microsoft develops and documents APIs for its operating systems
products to make those products more attractive to software vendors as
platforms for applications development---not because of any legal
considerations. Antitrust rules do not require companies to share
technology with their competitors (and we note that Netscape has
refused to provide much basic information about Navigator that would
enable other software vendors to build Netscape-compatible Internet
products). Microsoft’s understanding of its own operating systems
products and how new technologies can work with those products is not
"unfair," just as it is not unfair for Netscape to best understand
Netscape Navigator (which it bills as a platform for applications
development) and how new technologies can run on top of Navigator.
While Microsoft believes that Windows NT Server is the best
operating system for hosting a Web server, most Web servers today run
on UNIX or other operating systems. If Microsoft does not adequately
develop and document APIs for Web server use in Windows NT Server, Web
server developers and customers will turn elsewhere for their
operating systems needs.
PRICING AND PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS
Microsoft’s free distribution of Internet Explorer is not in any
way "predatory." It is remarkable that Netscape could suggest such a
thing since Netscape pioneered the strategy of free browser
distribution and used that strategy to obtain its current wide lead in
the marketplace. (In fact, Netscape admitted recently that half of all
Navigator users have not paid for it.) Microsoft is just trying to
compete by employing the same strategy. But there is one difference:
Netscape offered its browser free to all only until it achieved a huge
lead in browser usage; then it began to charge many customers for the
product. Microsoft has made clear that Internet Explorer will be free
forever.
Netscape’s suggestion that Microsoft is somehow violating the
antitrust laws by building new features and functionality (such as
Internet Explorer and Internet Information Server) into its operating
systems is preposterous. Competitors are supposed to innovate. They
are supposed to build better products with increased features and
functionality. They are supposed to seek to deliver more value to
customers at ever decreasing prices. That is what Microsoft is doing
by tightly integrating a wide range of innovative new technologies
into its operating systems to make them better platforms for computing
on the Internet. We believe that everyone should be computing on the
Internet and computer operating systems should provide the
software people need (like a TCP/IP stack and browser technology) to
make the Internet easy to use.
Netscape is also rapidly adding new features and functionality to
its products--bundling into Navigator, for example, a host of
technologies that other software vendors offer separately or might
otherwise like to offer separately (such as a mail client, an Internet
newsgroup reader, and Internet phone and conferencing capabilities).
Similarly, although Netscape complains that Microsoft is bundling
tools for the Internet into other Microsoft products, Netscape is
doing precisely the same thing: Netscape has bundled Web page creation
and editing capabilities into Navigator and called it "Navigator
Gold," and it has bundled its LiveWire product into its principal Web
server products, Enterprise Server and FastTrack. There is nothing
anticompetitive about new features and functionality offered by
Microsoft or Netscape: this is competition at work and it plainly
benefits consumers.
Netscape has stated publicly many times that it is developing
Navigator into much more than a mere browser. Netscape is positioning
Navigator as a platform for Internet development that will compete
head-on with Windows and other operating systems. Yet Netscape
apparently believes that Microsoft should be required to freeze
development of its operating systems and stand by idly while Netscape
develops and brings to market new technologies for the Internet in its
Navigator "platform." That is not going to happen and it certainly is
not what customers want.
The intense competition in the burgeoning Internet software
business has greatly benefited consumers and the entire software
industry. Microsoft intends to focus on developing great software and
widely licensing it to consumers. Netscape would do well to do the
same rather than devoting resources to spreading false information
about one of its primary competitors.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Alan Pilcher
I read every incredible word. It used to be that the Microsoft
mentality just annoyed me. Lately it's begun to actually scare me. I
really believe at this point the only thing that can save the pc
software industry is for Congress to outlaw pre-load agreements
altogether.
Glenn Davies
apil...@mindspring.com (Alan Pilcher) wrote:
I've come to the same conclusion. In the short term consumers benifit
greatly but in the long run we all pay for it in more ways than one.
It just seems that the upheaval of the last twenty years were for
naught and we've just replaced one IBM with another.
---
Glenn Davies inet: gl...@direct.ca
Imago Systems Inc - Virtual Reality Technology
phone: (604) 681-9288 fax: (604) 681-8705
Nathan Tennies
> I read every incredible word. It used to be that the Microsoft
> mentality just annoyed me. Lately it's begun to actually scare me. I
> really believe at this point the only thing that can save the pc
> software industry is for Congress to outlaw pre-load agreements
> altogether.
There has been some discussion about this among Macintosh developers in
relation to Apple's bundling of application software with Performas.
There's no doubt that this kind of bundling can hurt competition, and
reduce consumer's choice of software. The question is whether there are
better ways to provide buyers with added value, provide a ready-to-go
computer, and still allow a rich diversity of products. One cannot doubt
that more development resources might have been invested into other
"works" packages if ClarisWorks hadn't shipped with every Performa on the
planet.
This situations is even more severe in the Windows market, where Microsoft
takes this a step further and leverages its monopoly status in the
operating systems market to make sure that its products - and sometimes
its products alone - are bundled with new computers.
Nathan Tennies
Bootstrap Enterprises Inc
hen...@sunspot.ps.uci.edu
In <3220e7e0...@news.blarg.net>, fut...@blarg.net (Tim Gerchmez) writes:
>In the interest of fairness to Microsoft (Netscape's allegations have
>been posted), I hereby post MS's refutation of Netscape's allegations.
>
In MS's own words, when needled by the press about Netscape's chances for
competing against MS, a Microsoft suit had this to say:
(testily) "What about Microsoft owning Windows don't you understand?"
Netscape doesn't have an operating system monopoly. This is conveniently
left out of MS's reply. The DOJ would have to be braindead to buy this response.
_____
/ \ Douglas Lee Hendrix (hen...@sunspot.ps.uci.edu)
| | Department of Physics and Astronomy
^^ (o)(o) University of California, Irvine
C ,---_)
| |,___|
| \__/ Check out the Frontier home page
/_____\ http://www.solarsystems.com/frontier
/_____/ \
Jeff Glatt
>Tim Gerchmez
>In the interest of fairness to Microsoft (Netscape's allegations have
>been posted), I hereby post MS's refutation of Netscape's allegations.
>I hope you will read it with the same lack of prejudice that you read
>the Netscape allegations
I think you mean "WITHOUT the same prejudice that you had when reading
the Netscape allegations". After all, as OS/2 Advocates so often,
often, often, often, regularly, daily, frequently, etc, do when they
post such stuff as the Netscape allegations, is add their numerous,
many, regular, daily, etc, etc, comments that boil down to "I hope
that someone is going to destroy Microsoft now".
It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested,
ulterior motive in wanting MS destroyed. These are not people who use
MS products at all, but rather, people who underestimate and overlook
the inherent value in such, and have another, competing product that
they want to "push"
David T. Payne
Alan Pilcher (apil...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: I read every incredible word. It used to be that the Microsoft
: mentality just annoyed me. Lately it's begun to actually scare me. I
: really believe at this point the only thing that can save the pc
: software industry is for Congress to outlaw pre-load agreements
: altogether.
That's right - without Congress passing enormous legislation everyone
including the software industry is doomed! Please don't think bringing
in Congress to pass a law solves all the problems it usually just adds
to the mess. Try not to expect Congress to solve every problem
in your life - sometimes we have to try and solve them ourselves.
Dave Tholen
Jeff Glatt writes:
>> Tim Gerchmez
>> In the interest of fairness to Microsoft (Netscape's allegations have
>> been posted), I hereby post MS's refutation of Netscape's allegations.
>> I hope you will read it with the same lack of prejudice that you read
>> the Netscape allegations
> I think you mean "WITHOUT the same prejudice that you had when reading
> the Netscape allegations". After all, as OS/2 Advocates so often,
> often, often, often, regularly, daily, frequently, etc, do when they
> post such stuff as the Netscape allegations, is add their numerous,
> many, regular, daily, etc, etc, comments that boil down to "I hope
> that someone is going to destroy Microsoft now".
Which apparently serves as justification for Jeff to post his numerous,
many, regular, daily, etc, etc, anti-OS/2 and anti-IBM comments.
> It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested,
> ulterior motive in wanting MS destroyed.
It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested
ulterior motive in wanting OS/2 destroyed. That's as good an
explanation for Jeff's actions as any.
Scott Ashcraft
In article <32234ea8...@news.servtech.com>, jgl...@servtech.com (Jeff
Glatt) wrote:
>
> It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested,
> ulterior motive in wanting MS destroyed. These are not people who use
> MS products at all, but rather, people who underestimate and overlook
> the inherent value in such, and have another, competing product that
> they want to "push"
It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested,
ulterior motive in wanting IBM destroyed. These are not people who use
IBM products at all, but rather, people who underestimate and overlook
the inherent value in such, and have another, competing product that
they want to "push"
scott ashcraft | email: ra4...@email.sps.mot.com
software engineer | ph. : 512.933.3916
motorola mos2 cim | team os/2 running wintel-free
| my opinions are my own
joseph coughlan
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Tim Gerchmez
> >In the interest of fairness to Microsoft (Netscape's allegations have
> >been posted), I hereby post MS's refutation of Netscape's allegations.
> >I hope you will read it with the same lack of prejudice that you read
>
> I think you mean "WITHOUT the same prejudice that you had when reading
> the Netscape allegations". After all, as OS/2 Advocates so often,
> often, often, often, regularly, daily, frequently, etc, do when they
> post such stuff as the Netscape allegations, is add their numerous,
> many, regular, daily, etc, etc, comments that boil down to "I hope
> that someone is going to destroy Microsoft now".
Save this paragraph and show it to your psycologist during
your next visit. s/he will prescribe lithium.
Chip Salzenberg
According to jgl...@servtech.com (Jeff Glatt):
>It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested,
>ulterior motive in wanting MS destroyed.
Ah, Jeff. Paranoia strikes deep, eh?
Desiring fair competition does not necessarily mean desiring the
demise of MS. Unless MS is incapable of fair competition ... ?
--
Chip Salzenberg a.k.a. <ch...@atlantic.net>
"Men of lofty genius are most active
when they are doing the least work."
-- Leonardo da Vinci
Jeff Glatt
>>Jeff Glatt
>>It's really no secret that there are many folks who have a vested,
>>ulterior motive in wanting MS destroyed.
>Chip Salzenberg
>Desiring fair competition does not necessarily mean desiring the
>demise of MS.
Nevertheless, there are no shortage of OS/2 users gleefully
fantacizing about "the death of Microsoft" in regular postings in this
and other newsgroups. And that's why their intent is no secret
Alain Southiere
>Nevertheless, there are no shortage of OS/2 users gleefully
>fantacizing about "the death of Microsoft" in regular postings in this
>and other newsgroups. And that's why their intent is no secret
And there's no shortgage of Windows users gleefully fantacizing about
"the death of OS/2", "the death of Mac", etc. All of which can be summed
up as "the death of choice". They regurlarly posts about those here and
in many other Newsgroups and forums. That's why their intent is no
secret.
---
Alain Southiere | If fifty million people
Software developper | say a stupid thing, it is
als...@cam.org | still a stupid thing.
http://www.cam.org/~alsouth | - Anatole France