Free for All | Page 3

approached a number of PC manufacturers to see if they would include BeOS on
their machines and give users the chance to switch between two operating systems. Gass
e found, to no one's real surprise, that Microsoft's contracts with manufacturers made it
difficult, if not practically impossible, to get BeOS in customers' hands. Microsoft
controlled much of what the user got to see and insisted on almost total control over the
viewer's experience. Schmalensee didn't mention these details in his testimony. BeOS
may have been as locked up as a prisoner in a windowless cell in a stone-walled asylum
on an island in the middle of the ocean, but BeOS was still a competitor for the love of
the fair maiden.
The last competitor, though, was the most surprising to everyone. Schmalensee saw
Linux, a program given away for free, as a big potential competitor. When he said Linux,
he really meant an entire collection of programs known as "open source" software. These
were written by a loose-knit group of programmers who shared all of the source code to
the software over the Internet.
Open source software floated around the Internet controlled by a variety of licenses with
names like the GNU General Public License (GPL). To say that the software was
"controlled" by the license is a bit of a stretch. If anything, the licenses were deliberately
worded to prohibit control. The GNU GPL, for instance, let users modify the program

and give away their own versions. The license did more to enforce sharing of all the
source code than it did to control or constrain. It was more an anti-license than anything
else, and its author, Richard Stallman, often called it a "copyleft."
Schmalensee didn't mention that most people thought of Linux as a strange tool created
and used by hackers in dark rooms lit by computer monitors. He didn't mention that many
people had trouble getting Linux to work with their computers. He forgot to mention that
Linux manuals came with subheads like "Disk Druid-like 'fstab editor' available." He
didn't delve into the fact that for many of the developers, Linux was just a hobby they
dabbled with when there was nothing interesting on television. And he certainly didn't
mention that most people thought the whole Linux project was the work of a mad genius
and his weirdo disciples who still hadn't caught on to the fact that the Soviet Union had
already failed big-time. The Linux folks actually thought sharing would make the world a
better place. Fat-cat programmers who spent their stock-option riches on Porsches and
balsamic vinegar laughed at moments like this.
Schmalensee didn't mention these facts. He just offered Linux as an alternative to
Windows and said that computer manufacturers might switch to it at any time. Poof.
Therefore, Microsoft had competitors. At the trial, the discourse quickly broke down into
an argument over what is really a worthy competitor and what isn't. Were there enough
applications available for Linux or the Mac? What qualifies as "enough"? Were these
really worthy?
Under cross-examination, Schmalensee explained that he wasn't holding up the Mac,
BeOS, or Linux as competitors who were going to take over 50 percent of the
marketplace. He merely argued that their existence proved that the barriers produced by
the so-called Microsoft monopoly weren't that strong. If rational people were investing in
creating companies like BeOS, then Microsoft's power wasn't absolute.
Afterward, most people quickly made up their minds. Everyone had heard about the
Macintosh and knew that back then conventional wisdom dictated that it would soon fail.
But most people didn't know anything about BeOS or Linux. How could a company be a
competitor if no one had heard of it? Apple and Microsoft had TV commercials. BeOS, at
least, had a charismatic chairman. There was no Linux pitchman, no Linux jingle, and no
Linux 30-second spot in major media. At the time, only the best-funded projects in the
Linux community had enough money to buy spots on late-night community-access cable
television. How could someone without money compete with a company that hired the
Rolling Stones to pump excitement into a product launch?
When people heard that Microsoft was offering a free product as a worthy competitor,
they began to laugh even louder at the company's chutzpah. Wasn't money the whole
reason the country was having a trial? Weren't computer programmers in such demand
that many companies couldn't hire as many as they needed, no matter how high the salary?
How could Microsoft believe that anyone would buy the supposition that a bunch of
pseudo-communist nerds living in their weird techno-utopia where all the software was
free would ever come up with software that could compete with the richest company on
earth? At first glance, it looked as if Microsoft's case was