Apple vs. DoJ?

by: Conrad Gempf

It struck me the other day. It was while I was greedily drinking in the details of the flubbed evidence in the Microsoft trial. If things had gone a little bit differently, it would be Apple under investigation and, frankly, the prosecution would have an easier time showing Apple as a monopoly.

Curiously, I'm told that it was Microsoft who first objected to Apple's monopolistic practices in the late 80s. At that point in time, Microsoft Word was not the most popular word processor, not by a long shot. MacWrite was good enough for most folks and not only did everyone who bought a Mac get the full MacWrite package but it looked as though we'd have free upgrades for life. When ever a new version was released we could just nip down to the dealer with a blank disk and be permitted to copy it for use on our computers back at home. But Apple was aware even back then that it was crucial to the success of the Mac to have third party software developers writing for it. Gates and Microsoft weighed in, not with the threat of the Dept. of Justice, but with a commercial ultimatum. Either stop producing good free software or we stop writing for the Mac.

But even after Apple started charging for MacWrite and MacPaint and for upgrades, they, like Microsoft, continued to be in the business of producing and often giving away the Operating System, the User Interface and programs that run on top. The current Microsoft trial revolves around the incorporation of Microsoft's browser, which they renamed Explorer when they acquired it, into the functions of the operating system. Apple, at one point, could have been accused of the same thing without any trouble. The ill-fated combination of OpenDoc (the logical extension of Apple's revolutionary Publish&Subscribe efforts and a rival technology to Microsoft's OLE which copied Publish&Subscribe) and Cyberdog gave Apple the same kind of integration. Indeed Apple is still, to some extent, Sherlock up to the same kind of thing with Sherlock.

But of course, Apple has even more potential for monopolistic practices. For not only does it control the Operating System, GUI and some of the software, but Apple, unlike Microsoft, also controls just about every aspect of the hardware. Imagine if Gates also owned Compaq.

Had the Macintosh been as successful in the early days as it deserved to have been, there can be no doubt that accusations of monopoly would have been thrown at it, just as they have about Microsoft. In US law, however, the crime is not in *being* a monopoly, apparently, but in using the power as leverage for your products over others. Would Apple have stooped to the kind of sharp practice and underhanded bullying that Microsoft is often accused of? When you think of the history of maneuvers with licensing the OS and with authorising dealers, you can't help but be worried.

In short, if the Macintosh hadn't spent some time in trouble with market share, Apple may well have found itself in a different kind of trouble.

Dr Conrad Gempf lectures in London and has had articles and product reviews published in such print magazines as *Pen Computing*, *MacUser UK*, *MacTimes* and *Program Now*. He is webmaster of and regular contributor to the online webzine 'Pages for You' at http://www.londonbiblecollege.ac.uk

.

February 09, 2010