By Jonathan Collins in Washington
Yesterday finally saw IBM Corp step into the fray of the Microsoft antitrust trial in Washington. The computer giant that helped set Microsoft on its way, and co-developed much of the Windows code with Microsoft, stepped up on behalf of the federal government in an attempt to show that Microsoft had used the success and market domination of Windows to block even its most well-funded competitors. IBM Corp director of network computing services, John Soyring took the witness stand and faced questions from Microsoft attorneys as they sought to turn around his testimony that suggested Microsoft unfairly shut out rival PC operating systems by manipulating both independent software vendors as well as existing and potential customers. In its cross examination of Soyring, which will continue today, Microsoft’s lawyers repeatedly worked to show that OS/2 was not as a victim of Microsoft’s market manipulations but rather the poor technical and marketing decisions taken at IBM. IBM has long been stuck with supporting the loss making OS/2, having sold it into some of its key clients when the system was launched in 1987. Despite several attempts to match Microsoft in the market, it has failed because of the cost of continually developing the system for key customers that include the Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. In his written deposition presented prior to his taking the stand, Soyring referred to the enormous effort IBM had made since 1987 made to make OS/2 a popular choice operating system. IBM has invested hundreds of millions of dollars on OS/2 research, development, distribution and marketing said Soyring, but, he continued, despite this enormous effort, OS/2 has not enjoyed broad commercial success. However, Soyring maintained that OS/2 had been successful in the some areas of the corporate market despite being stifled by Microsoft in the broader consumer market. Microsoft countered that this was because when OS/2 was released, IBM used it as a way to sell its premium PC hardware – the PS2 – into its corporate customers. IBM’s version of OS/2 required 8Mb to 16Mb of RAM, whereas the first version of Windows released shortly afterwards needed only 4Mb – at the time far closer to the level of existing PC user base. This along with the inability of OS/2 to run existing MS-DOS applications stopped the uptake up of the operating system outside corporate, the Microsoft counsel suggested. The defense also produced ads from IBM in 1992, after it had released Version 2 of OS/2, in which IBM claimed OS/2 could run Windows applications better than DOS. Microsoft’s counsel maintained that by making these claims, IBM was itself stifling ISV interest in developing applications specifically for the OS/2 platform because it meant developers could write applications for Windows and be certain that they would also run well on OS/2; a point that Soyring admitted had made the capability a double edged sword. At present, according to Soyring, there are around 2,500 applications written for the OS/2 operating system. He contrasted this with a recent claim from Bill Gates that there will be 60,000 applications ready for the Windows2000 platform (the next version of NT) when it is released in 2000. By 1992 when OS/2 could run Windows and DOS 16- bit applications, Soyring claimed that Microsoft created a new tactic to keep ISVs and customers away from OS/2, that of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). In 1993, the source code access rights to each other’s PC operating systems ended. Soyring testified that it was then that Microsoft started pre-announcing its plans to develop a 32-bit version of Windows (which eventually became Windows 95). He said that IBM would not be able to support the 32-bit applications written for the new platform as it would no longer have access to the Microsoft source code. The FUD, at least in the minds of ISVs and corporate buyers followed, argued Soyring. Soyring also claimed that Microsoft was able to limit uptake of IBM’s OS/2 operating system and any other potential co
mpetitor by restricting access to Windows operating system Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and the developer tools used to create Windows-specific applications. Nevertheless, countered Microsoft, IBM did manage to clone around 700 of the most common Windows API’s in OS/2 Version 2. Soyring replied that although this was the case it, and its software unit Lotus Development Corp, had not been able to either replicate or license the API’s for ActiveX – Microsoft’s component object technologies software – because of the prohibitively high cost of doing so. During the questioning the Microsoft defense also sought to draw out that over the eleven years of IBM’s OS/2 sales IBM had added functionality to its operating system if it felt it would benefit end users. The issue is a key one that Microsoft maintains it has been doing by integrating Internet Explorer with Windows 95 and 98. á
