[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 40 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2617-S2620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     COMPETITION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: UNITED STATES VERSUS MICROSOFT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak for a few moments on 
the Justice Department's ongoing case against Microsoft, and to discuss 
the Judiciary Committee's upcoming agenda in examining competition in 
the digital markets.
  As my colleagues know, the Department of Justice and 19 states have 
sued Microsoft for violating federal antitrust laws. In the case 
brought by the Department of Justice, the Government has completed its 
case in chief, and Microsoft rested its case on Friday, February 26.
  While the trial is proceeding in the courts, I have not held hearings 
on Microsoft's apparent monopolistic activities and their impact on 
competition within the software and related technology markets. 
However, as I noted last November, the Judiciary Committee will 
continue to examine the important role proper and timely enforcement of 
federal antitrust laws can have on fostering both competition and 
innovation for emerging technologies, while minimizing the need for 
government regulation of the Internet.
  I believe an important area of inquiry is evaluating the significant 
public policy concerns posed by the question of what remedies should be 
imposed in cases where, notwithstanding the generally dynamic and 
competitive nature of Internet-related industries, high technology 
companies have been found to have violated the antitrust laws.
  As I have maintained in the past, these dynamic high-technology 
industries are different from other traditional industries of the past, 
and antitrust remedies must take these differences and the special 
characteristics of the respective high-tech industries into account.
  Mr. President, if, at the close of the trial, Microsoft is found to 
have violated the law, the remedies that the court would apply will 
implicate many policy concerns with respect to how business in the 
high-technology industry is transacted. Any resolution of the matter--
including any settlement, I believe, should aim to restore competition 
and ensure that neither Microsoft, nor any other monopolist similarly 
situated, is allowed to continue to benefit from the market advantages 
it gained unfairly.
  Promoting real and vigorous competition, which respects intellectual 
property rights, will not only ensure better prices for the consumers, 
but will also ensure that innovation is not hampered due to the market 
stranglehold of a monopolist. Ensuring that true competition exists in 
the market is also the best way to keep the government out of the 
business of regulating the Internet.
  Government should not exert unwarranted control over the Internet--
even if Vice President Gore still thinks he created it. Nor should any 
one company. Indeed, I share Senator Gorton's interest in knowing where 
the Vice President stands with respect to the Microsoft case. After 
all, doesn't the father of the Internet have a view on who should be 
able to control his creation?
  In the trial, we saw the government put forth a powerful case against 
Microsoft. And, we saw Microsoft put forth a not so stellar defense. 
Many experts, even those who were skeptical at first, now believe that 
the government may well prevail.
  I ask unanimous consent that several illustrative articles related to 
this case be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 11, 1999]

               U.S. Hammers at Microsoft's Browser Deals

                           (By Joel Brinkley)

       A senior Microsoft official acknowledged in Federal court 
     today that the company's contracts had prohibited Internet 
     service providers from offering its browser on the same Web 
     page as its main competition because Microsoft executives 
     ``thought we would lose in a side-by-side choice.''
       The admission clearly pleased David Boies, the Government 
     lawyer who elicited it from the witness, Cameron Myhrvold, a 
     vice president in the Microsoft Corporation's Internet 
     Customer Unit division--so much so that Mr. Boies asked the 
     same question four different ways and got the same answer 
     each time.
       ``Was it true you were trying to prevent Internet service 
     providers from presenting Netscape and Internet Explorer side 
     by side so users could choose?'' he asked at one point. 
     Internet Explorer is the name of Microsoft's browser; the 
     Netscape Communications Corporation's Navigator is its 
     principal rival.
       ``We thought we would lose in a side-by-side choice, ``Mr. 
     Myhrvold answered, because Netscape was already so firmly 
     established in the market.
       In all, it was another bad day in court for Microsoft in 
     its antitrust battle with the Justice Department, which 
     charges that the software giant used a monopoly in personal 
     computer operating systems to achieve a dominant position in 
     Internet software. Hour after hour, Mr. Boies chiseled away 
     at Mr. Myhrvold's testimony, forcing him to acknowledge 
     incorrect assertions, misleading omissions and deceptive 
     statements.
       Mr. Myhrvold repeatedly acknowledged that he made 
     misstatements in E-mail memos. He also testified that he 
     disagreed with Microsoft employees whose memos contradicted 
     his own assertions.
       As he completed his testimony this evening it was clear the 
     Mr. Myhrvold's appearance had not helped Microsoft's case. In 
     fact, as Microsoft's defense reached its midpoint this 
     evening, none of its first five witnesses had proved 
     particularly effective advocates of the company's position.
       Mr. Myhrvold, a brother of Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's 
     chief technology officer, is in charge of the Microsoft 
     division that negotiates agreements with Internet service 
     providers, the companies that give computer users access to 
     the Internet. The Government charges that Microsoft's 
     restrictive contracts with these companies are 
     anticompetitive and illegal. Mr. Myhrvold tried to make the 
     case that the contracts were largely ineffective or benign.
       Many of these companies have agreements to be listed in the 
     Internet Referral Service in Microsoft's Windows operating 
     system, which enables users to subscribe to an Internet 
     service posted there. On Tuesday, Mr. Myhrvold insisted that 
     the Government's assertion that these companies had to favor 
     Explorer over Navigator to be included in the service was 
     ``absolutely wrong.''
       But under further cross-examination by Mr. Boies today, Mr. 
     Myhrvold admitted that in most cases the companies had been 
     required to ship Explorer to at least 75 percent of their 
     customers. Mr. Myhrvold added that they were free to stop 
     shipping the Microsoft product if they wanted, in which case 
     they could be dropped from the Windows referral service.
       ``It's a fairly subtle point,'' Mr. Myhrvold acknowledged.
       Similarly, in his written direct testimony, Mr. Myhrvold 
     pointedly noted that several Internet service providers in 
     the referral service were not shipping Explorer as required, 
     and yet the company had decided not to enforce the contracts.
       For example, he wrote, ``of the copies of Web browsing 
     software shipped by Concentric,'' a reference to Concentric 
     Networks, a small Internet service provider, ``only 17 
     percent were Internet Explorer.''
       But those figures were for 1997, Mr. Boies entered into 
     evidence a Microsoft document showing that by the first 
     quarter of 1998, 100 percent of Concentric's browser 
     shipments were Internet Explorer.
       Mr. Myhrvold repeatedly noted that Netcom, a Internet 
     service unit of ICG Communications Inc. that has a contract 
     with Microsoft, made no real effort to switch customers to 
     Internet Explorer, testifying that one point in 1997--when 10 
     percent of Netcom's customers were getting the Microsoft 
     product--was ``the high-water mark.''
       But Mr. Boies then displayed a Microsoft document showing 
     that in early 1998 the percentage had risen to 40 percent. 
     Then Mr. Boies offered another Microsoft document showing 
     that Netcom was actually able to control the browser choice 
     of only a small percentage of the people who signed up for 
     its service; most customers were handed to Netcom by computer 
     makers, or by Netscape. That same document showed that 
     Microsoft won an agreement with Netcom that 90 percent of the 
     customers Netcom did control would switch to Internet 
     Explorer.
       To that, Mr. Myhrvold said only that the author of the 
     Microsoft document ``was a pretty good salesman.''
       Later, the response to a question from a Microsoft lawyer, 
     Mr. Myhrvold denied a Government assertion that his staff had 
     offered a British division of Uunet, an Internet service 
     owned by MCI Worldcom, $500,000 to swtich to Internet 
     Explorer. He said he told his staff that ``it would not be 
     appropriate to

[[Page S2618]]

     tie payments to shipments of Internet Explorer.''
       Moments later, Mr. Boies displayed still another E-mail 
     that Mr. Mhyrvold had written to a subordinate in Britain in 
     which he said, ``I think tying the payment to their shipping 
     of IE is a great idea, though I would not do this formally.'' 
     Mr. Myhrvold explained that the message had not meant what it 
     said, and he had called the subordinate later to tell him not 
     to tie the two. There was no record of that call, he 
     conceded.
       On Thursday, Brad Chase, another Microsoft executive, takes 
     the stand. In his written direct testimony, which was made 
     public today, he defends Microsoft's contract requiring 
     America Online to switch its customers to Internet Explorer.
       Mr. Chase writes that ``nothing in the license requires 
     AOL's subscribers to choose Internet Explorer.'' But a 
     Mircosoft memo introduced today suggests the cross-
     examination Mr. Chase is likely to face.
       In it, a Microsoft executive writes that ``the typical AOL 
     user is a novice.'' And as a result, AOL uses ``the force-
     feed approach. They force feed the upgrade at log off,'' 
     meaning that Ameica Online automatically downloaded Internet 
     Explorer to users when they logged off the service.
       An America Online executive testified earlier in the trial 
     that very few users bothered to swtich from Internet Explorer 
     to Navigator, even though they were allowed to, because 
     finding and installing the Netsccape browser was too 
     difficult.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Feb. 5, 1999]

         Microsoft Shows New Tape, and Opens a New Can of Worms

                           (By Joel Brinkley)

       Washington, Feb. 4.--Trying to stop the damage from a 
     disastrous week in court, the Microsoft Corporation played a 
     new, videotaped demonstration at its antitrust trial 
     Thursday.
       The 70-minute video showed James E. Allchin, a senior 
     company executive, performing live tests and then looking 
     into the camera and saying that he had proved his point--that 
     a prototype Government program intended to separate 
     Microsoft's Web browser from the Windows operating system had 
     really done no such thing.
       The program just hid the browser, he showed. Further, he 
     demonstrated, running the program disabled some other 
     features in Windows and caused additional problems.
       In Federal Court on Monday, Microsoft had played a long 
     videotape intended to demonstrate the advantages of 
     integrating a Web browser with Windows and debunk the 
     Government program, written by a Princeton University 
     professor and two of his students.
       But in the last two days, David Boies, the Government's 
     lead lawyer in the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, 
     gradually pulled the tape apart, pointing out numerous 
     technical questions and errors, until finally Judge Thomas 
     Penfield Jackson declared Wednesday afternoon that he no 
     longer viewed the tape as reliable evidence.
       ``It's very troubling,'' he said.
       After that, Microsoft gave up and asked for an opportunity 
     to make a new tape. As soon as court adjourned Wednesday, a 
     Microsoft spokesman drove to a shopping mall in suburban 
     Landover, Md,, and bought six I.B.M. Thinkpad laptop 
     computers at CompUSA, for use in the new effort.
       A film crew was hired on short notice, and the computers 
     were delivered to a conference room at Sullivan & Cromwell, 
     the law firm that is representing Microsoft.
       To assure that the new tape woud be viewed as credible, a 
     Government lawyer and the Princeton professor, Dr. Edward W. 
     Felten, along with his two students, were invited to come by 
     at 8:30 p.m. to witness the taping. But they were not 
     permitted into the room for two hours, while the Microsoft 
     team unpacked the boxes and set up the computers--leading to 
     angry concerns that something nefarious was under way. The 
     taping was not completed until after midnight.
       Asked in court Thursday why the Government representatives 
     were not let in, Allchin--normally a low-key unflappable 
     man--bristled and said: ``Sir, I was not involved with that, 
     and it would have been okay with me.''
       Allchin sat in the witness stand and watched silently as 
     his tape was played. On the tape, Allchin, who is a senior 
     vice president for Microsoft in charge of the Windows 
     division, navigated his way into a new computer he did not 
     know and ran up against the same software problems and 
     glitches every computer user encounters.
       ``Okay, I've got to figure this out, and I don't have my 
     glasses with me,'' he said matter of factly when his screen 
     suddenly went blank. Later, when a Microsoft promotional 
     program popped onto the screen unbidden, complete with a loud 
     gong from Big Ben followed by upbeat jazz, Allchin looked a 
     bit annoyed and said, ``Very nice music, but not tonight.''
       As he tried to connect to the Internet while the camera 
     watched, the connections often failed, and when one did 
     succeed, it seemed to be agonizing slow--nothing like the 
     zippy Internet downloads shown in Microsoft's demonstration 
     tape that was played in court on Monday.
       ``The performance problem you see here has nothing to do 
     with Dr. Felten's program,'' Allchin acknowledged at one 
     point.
       Judge Jackson, who is hearing the case without a jury, 
     watched the tape silently, often with a bemused expression on 
     his face.
       When it was over, Allchin demonstrated that, after running 
     the Government program, he was able to re-enable Internet 
     Explorer through a complex series of changes in the Windows 
     registry file that no normal user would be able to carry out 
     without precise instructions.
       Before doing that, he demonstrated that several programs 
     did not work properly on what he called ``a Felten-ized 
     machine.''
       All of the problems he showed related to features of the 
     programs that interacted with the Internet. And when Boies 
     got a chance to question Allchin again, he immediately asked: 
     Isn't it logical to expect, after disabling the browser, 
     ``that anything that depended on the browser wouldn't work 
     right?''
       Allchin conceded that. And as for the other problems and 
     glitches Allchin demonstrated, Boies said: ``What Dr. Felten 
     prepared was not a commercial product. It was a concept 
     program. Wouldn't you expect it to have problems? Doesn't 
     Microsoft find bugs in its programs during the normal course 
     of software development?'' To that last question, Allchin 
     said yes.
       Before Allchin played his tape, another Microsoft witness, 
     Michael Devlin, an independent software developer, completed 
     his testimony in about 90 minutes. In his direct, written 
     testimony, he said his company appreciated Microsoft's 
     decision to include a Web browser with Windows.
       Boies, the lead Government attorney, barely referred to 
     that testimony in his brief, 27-minute cross-examination. 
     Instead he tried to throw Devlin's motivations for testifying 
     into question by demonstrating that his company was dependent 
     on Microsoft for more than half of its business and was at 
     risk of serious financial damage from Microsoft if the 
     company were to decide to make a competing product.
       Devlin acknowledged that, but Boies never asked him 
     directly if those concerns had played into his decision to 
     agree to Microsoft's request to testify.
       Microsoft also made public the written testimony of the 
     next witness, William Poole, senior director of business 
     development for Microsoft, who will take the stand on Monday.
       In it, Poole defends the restrictive contracts Microsoft 
     won from other companies doing business on the Internet, 
     requiring them to promote Internet Explorer in exchange for 
     advertising space in Windows.
       The Government charges that these contracts are 
     anticompetitive and illegal, but Poole calls them ``routine 
     cross-licensing agreements, common across many industries.''
       Poole also argues that, in the end, the contracts did not 
     significantly impede the Netscape Communications Corporation, 
     the chief competitor to Internet Explorer. And he adds, the 
     ``channel bar,'' the space in Windows where the ads appeared, 
     ``turned out to be a commercial disappointment'' in any case.
                                  ____


                [From the Seattle Times, Feb. 23, 1999]

    Microsoft Trial--Executive Admits Offering Netscape Inducements

                         (By James V. Grimaldi)

       Washington.--A Microsoft executive acknowledged offering 
     Netscape Communications executives ``several inducements'' in 
     mid-1995 to get the browser maker to adopt certain Microsoft 
     Internet technologies.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Today, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson 
     indicated just how far Microsoft had to go to repair the 
     damage. As Rosen resumed the stand for direct questioning by 
     Microsoft attorney Michael Lacovara, Jackson reminded Rosen 
     that he was still under oath. Then, the judge turned to the 
     attorney's podium and said, ``Mr. Lacovara, it is always 
     inspiring to watch young people embark on heroic endeavors.''
       Testifying that archrival Netscape posed no significant 
     threat to Microsoft in 1995, Rosen yesterday attempted to 
     refute allegations that the Redmond corporation attempted to 
     divide the market for Internet browsers with Netscape during 
     a June 21, 1995, meeting.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       By saying that he didn't consider Netscape a significant 
     competitor before the meeting, Rosen was trying to build a 
     foundation for his defense: If Netscape was not perceived as 
     a competitor, then Microsoft couldn't possibly have been 
     trying to divide the market for browsers with the Silicon 
     Valley company's executives.
       Rosen strongly denied the market-division allegation in 
     written testimony. In particular, he was called to dispute 
     the testimony of Netscape Chief Executive Jim Barksdale, the 
     government's first witness, and other Netscape officials who 
     were questioned before the trial.
       Today he said Netscape officials first suggested the idea 
     that a ``line'' be drawn between the underlying operating-
     system technology and what would run on top of that 
     technology, such as an Internet browser.
       But when Boies began his second round of questioning, Rosen 
     had more difficulties. He testified that he had not received 
     a copy of the Netscape browser software before the 1995 
     meeting. Shown a copy of an e-mail with Rosen asking another 
     Microsoft executive for it, Rosen said that it turned out to 
     be an early copy that did not install well.
       Boies blew up: ``You don't remember that, do you, sir? 
     You're just making that up right now.''

[[Page S2619]]

       Rosen replied: ``No, sir. I remember it.''
       Boies showed Rosen another e-mail. Rosen read it and 
     replied, ``I stand corrected.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``I remember thinking that Bill was probably wrong because 
     Jim Barksdale was telling me that Netscape didn't intend to 
     compete in this way,'' Rosen said. ``I probably had a better 
     perspective than Mr. Gates did on Netscape's true 
     intentions.''
       Rosen testified that it was his understanding that Netscape 
     did not want leadership for its Navigator browser on the 
     Windows 95 platform, though he had written in a May 1995 memo 
     that Microsoft should try to control Netscape.
       Rosen worked hard to repudiate his own memo, which 
     indicates he considered Netscape a threat. He said he had 
     just joined Microsoft and the memo was a draft that contained 
     errors.
       On Page 3 of the five-page memo, Rosen wrote, ``Microsoft 
     currently controls the base and the evolution of the desktop 
     platform. The threat of another company--Netscape has been 
     mentioned by many--to use their Internet WWW browser as an 
     evolution based could threaten a considerable portion of 
     Microsoft's future revenue.''
       Boies asked: ``Did you believe that when you wrote it?''
       Rosen said ``No, sir.'' He added, ``I don't know why this 
     is surprising. I wrote this down to discuss this with others 
     to find out what my ideas looked like compared to others. 
     This was a draft document.''
       Boies and Rosen continued to tangle over the memo, which 
     Rosen acknowledged he wrote but repeatedly said he never 
     sent.
       ``If you want me to comment on a draft memo that was never 
     set,'' he said, ``I don't know how fair it is.''
       Replied Boies: ``You might understand how someone reading 
     this might believe you meant what you wrote.''
       Said Rosen: ``Yes.''
       After a lunch break, the government showed Rosen a document 
     from Preston, Gates & Ellis showing that the memo was 
     produced from the files of Microsoft executive Ben Slivka. 
     Rosen acknowledged he must have sent it ``at the very least'' 
     to Slivka.

                           *   *   *   *   *

                                  ____


              [From the New York Times, February 27, 1999]

             Microsoft Rests Its Case, Ending on a Misstep

                           (By Joel Brinkley)

       After more than five months of testimony, the Microsoft 
     Corporation rested its case today in the Government's 
     landmark antitrust suit, but not before the presiding judge 
     had shouted angrily at the company's final witness and 
     ordered him to stop talking.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       John Warden, Microsoft's lead trial lawyer, acknowledged 
     that others believed that the Government had ``succeeded in 
     undermining our witnesses.'' But he called this a desperation 
     tactic. ``When you don't have the laws or the facts, you try 
     credibility, and that's what I think has driven them to this 
     strategy.''
       David Boies, the Government's lead trial lawyer, who has 
     tripped up and embarrassed most of Microsoft's witnesses, 
     said he believed that casting doubt on witnesses' credibility 
     was not all that had been achieved.
       ``They've admitted monopoly power,'' he said. ``They've 
     admitted the absence of competitive constraints. They've 
     admitted raising prices to hurt consumers. They've admitted 
     depriving consumers of choice.''
       In the witness box today, Robert Muglia, a Microsoft senior 
     vice president, tried to put the best face on his company's 
     relationship with Sun Microsystems, the creator and owner of 
     the Java programming language. The Government charges that 
     Microsoft tried to sabotage Sun because it saw Java as a 
     competitive threat.
       Mr. Muglia, who said Microsoft's relationship with Sun was 
     his responsibility, repeatedly asserted that Microsoft was 
     interested in cooperating with Sun. But Mr. Boies presented 
     numerous E-mail messages and memos from senior Microsoft 
     executives, saying in one manner or another that they wanted 
     to defeat Sun.
       The combined effect of the memos was to leave the 
     impression that if Mr. Muglia was to be believed, he was 
     either out of touch or naive. And his continued defense of 
     his position, even in the face of a contradictory E-mail from 
     William H. Gates, the company's chairman, set off the judge.
       In May 1997, Mr. Gates wrote: ``I am hard-core about NOT 
     supporting'' the latest version of Java. Messages in the same 
     string of E-mail from other senior executives made the same 
     statement, but with exclamation points and expletives.
       Yet Mr. Muglia tried to make the case that Mr. Gates had 
     not really meant what he wrote, adding, ``I don't exactly 
     know what Bill meant by support.''
       At that, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is hearing the 
     case without a jury, shook his head and interrupted with an 
     irritated tone, saying: ``There's no question he says he does 
     not like the idea of supporting it. Let's not argue about 
     it.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Earlier, Mr. Boies had showed him a Microsoft memo setting 
     out the company's strategy on Java. The first line was ``Kill 
     cross-platform Java by growing the polluted Java market.'' 
     Sun and the Government accuse Microsoft of creating its own 
     ``polluted'' version of Java to undermine Sun's version. 
     Microsoft argues that its version is better.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       This morning Microsoft's lawyer was questioning the 
     preceding witness, Joachim Kempin, a Microsoft vice 
     president, prompting him to list the modifications Microsoft 
     was not allowing computer manufacturers to make to its 
     Windows operating system. A year ago, the company forbade 
     most or all such changes, which contributed to Federal 
     antitrust charges.
       Judge Jackson interrupted the questions to ask in an even 
     tone: ``Are all these rights manufacturers now possess a 
     matter of sufferance and grace on the part of Microsoft, or 
     are they expressly written into the contracts?''
       Mr. Kempin said some were granted in personal letters to 
     the companies, others in phone conversations--not in 
     contracts.
       ``So you have chosen to waive or give up certain rights you 
     have in your contract?'' the judge said.
       That's right, Mr. Kempin said. The judge's questions 
     appeared to mirror the Government's assertions that 
     Microsoft's new generosity to manufacturers could be 
     temporary--lasting only as long as Microsoft's previous 
     behavior is the subject of antitrust charges.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read them if they 
have not already done so. These articles set forth but a few examples 
of Microsoft's unfortunate actions that have manifested in what has 
been several months of missteps and embarrassments for the company.
  The trial is not over. The case is just suspended until the week of 
April 12, when the court will reconvene for probably several weeks of 
testimony from rebuttal witnesses. But Microsoft and its defenders have 
again begun their public relations efforts here in the Senate.
  Just last Friday, my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, took the floor to again defend Microsoft, 
and attack the Antitrust enforcers and me for questioning Microsoft's 
actions. I have said before and will say it again: Microsoft is not 
above the law. The facts and the law should and will prevail regardless 
of Microsoft's public relations campaign, its ill-advised lobbying 
efforts, and its muddled defenses.
  I had been surprised to read several weeks ago that Senator Gorton, 
in a February 9 press conference, ``vowed to use his influence as a 
member of the Appropriations Committee to cut funding for the Justice 
Department's antitrust division.'' I and several concerned Senators 
wrote to Senators Gregg and Hollings and argued that a move to cut the 
Division's funding without justification could be perceived by many as 
interfering with an ongoing litigation.
  I was pleased to hear that my colleague has apparently conceded that 
trying to cut DOJ's funding would be unwise. However, he has now 
properly downsized his ambition and is now advocating not increasing 
the Antitrust Division's budget by the amount the Administration has 
requested.
  I am not yet convinced that the Antitrust Division has fully 
justified its request for a substantial budget increase. In fact, I 
believe the Congress should work with the Administration to examine 
whether we should adjust the Hart-Scott-Rodino value thresholds in 
order to ensure that the Department's merger reviews take into account 
inflation and the true economic impact of mergers in today's economy. 
Attorney General Reno has pledged to work with me on this, and I look 
forward to working with any of my colleagues who may have an interest 
in this issue. In this age of precious resources, we will be looking 
closely at the Antitrust Division's budget and operations, and making 
sure that any reasonable budget increase is justified.
  A final point. My friend and Senator from Microsoft's home state has 
publicly stated that a number of companies across the nation, including 
some in my state of Utah, work with Microsoft and would be hurt by the 
current antitrust litigation against Microsoft. I don't know if they 
will be hurt, but what I do know is that there are many high technology 
companies and millions of consumers in the States of Washington, Utah 
and across the nation that would be harmed by any anticompetitive act 
of Microsoft.
  In fact, we heard testimony before the Judiciary Committee from one 
Seattle, Washington-based company, Real

[[Page S2620]]

Networks, describing how Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct crippled 
their technology and hurt the company, although I have to say Real 
Networks has been doing very well ever since because of their 
fascinating innovations and the tremendous abilities that they have in 
this field. However, if violations of the antitrust laws are not 
pursued against powerful companies like the Microsofts of the world, as 
the Senator from Washington suggests, many of the technology companies, 
not to mention the consumers, in the states of Washington, Utah and all 
across the nation, will suffer. Mr. President, the survival of these 
companies means jobs, it means innovation, it means competition in the 
digital market, and it means the availability of consumer choice.
  I just hope that Microsoft can learn from its mistakes in court and 
its earlier mistakes here in Congress. Frankly, some of their efforts 
here have reminded me of those who would tie themselves to railroad 
tracks and wait for a train to come just to make a point. Microsoft's 
misguided legal and legislative advice has not helped its case to date, 
and I would hope, for Microsoft's case, that they would not initiate a 
foolish political protest which could leave them even more damaged than 
they are now. Frankly, I don't think this train is going to stop.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and turn the 
floor over for my dear friend from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair and my distinguished 
colleague for setting aside this particular time.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hollings pertaining to the introduction of S. 605 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The distinguished Senator from Idaho 
is recognized.

                          ____________________