Now I would be the first to argue that one should not overanalyze e-mail messages, and that it is fundamentally unfair to draw final conclusions from such ambiguous evidence. But whatever the e-mail meant, would you agree Microsoft has the right alleged? Would you agree with the principle? Is it your view that you should be free to use your power over a platform for whatever purpose you want, including the purpose of weakening innovations that might threaten you?
Your essay in Time was about the government's proposed breakup of Microsoft. I too have been a skeptic about a breakup, but not for the reasons you raise. And here again, I wonder: What is the principle behind your reasons?
The government's proposed breakup would separate Microsoft's applications from its operating system. It would create two companies - WinCo and AppCo - that would each compete in its respective field. AppCo would become just another applications developer. Just as Intuit (INTU) builds applications separate from Microsoft and Palm (PALM) builds applications separate from Microsoft, AppCo would have to build applications, such as Office, separate from the company that controlled the OS.
You have long argued - correctly, I believe - that the platform Microsoft's OS provides allows many independent software developers to innovate. In other words, the great advantage that a dominant platform provides is a consistent way for independent developers to innovate, without their controlling the OS.
But the essence of your complaints against the government's proposal is that Microsoft, after the breakup, would not be able to innovate in the way that these independent software developers have. That somehow innovation with Microsoft's products requires control over the OS, but other company's products do not.
How could this be? You say Microsoft "could not have created the Windows operating system if we had been prohibited from developing Microsoft Office as well." But how could Apple develop a rich and powerful operating system (for which you wrote the first version of Word) without controlling the development of Office? You say if Microsoft is broken up, new products like the PC Tablet "simply won't happen," because your OS and applications developers "will be unable to collaborate." But why can companies like Palm develop applications integrated into the operating system without controlling the Windows OS? How can Microsoft's Mac division develop integrated products for the Macintosh OS without owning the Mac OS? Why is it that every other firm can build on the Windows OS without owning Windows, but Microsoft's AppCo could not?
Maybe your point is that the government's proposed remedy would disadvantage AppCo relative to other independent developers. If that is true, that is certainly a criticism of the remedy. But if AppCo were as free as others to work with WinCo, then why would innovation be chilled? If others have innovated without controlling it all, why couldn't Microsoft?
