Yesterday, the Association for Competitive Technology submitted its official response to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections regarding Microsoft’s integration of Internet Explorer into the Windows operating system.  While the Statement of Objections itself and much of the process around it is confidential, we wanted to share the basic reasons why so many small independent software developers are concerned about this case.  In fact, 74 SMEs from throughout Europe have signed a declaration of concerns we included as part of our submission.

Why Does a Company Or Organization Intervene?

The core reason for intervening in a court proceeding like this is that neither 400px-Venn_diagram_cmyk_svg primary party is adequately representing your interests.  While intervenors are usually divided into teams (plaintiff vs. defendant) in media reports, it is more accurate to think of all the parties as part of a Venn Diagram.  Interests overlap rather than being perfectly aligned.  In this case, Microsoft is focused on protecting its ability to continue innovating and building a profitable enterprise.   Opera is interested in improving its ability to profit from its web browser, and the European Commission is focused on enforcing Europe’s antitrust laws.  ACT, on the other hand, is focused on the interests of the thousands of independent software developers that create programs for the Windows platform.  In this case, our interests overlap more with Microsoft than Opera.

What Is At Stake for SME Software Developers?

To desktop software developers, Internet Explorer is NOT a competitor to Opera or Firefox.  Opera, Firefox, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer compete for consumers to use their applications when they browse the web.  However, Internet Explorer provides software developers with something that Opera, Firefox, and Google Chrome simply can’t offer: a robust platform for application development that enables developers to save time and development costs. 

Underlying the Internet Explorer program is a complex set of code that exposes Application Programming Interfaces or APIs that developers use to render and navigate the file structure of content that is on the user’s own PC (or a local server), create hypertext help systems, and provide web and internet-related functionality.  While Opera, Firefox, and Chrome all expose some APIs, they are merely for customizing the look and feel of the browser itself not integrating aspects of the browser functionality into unrelated programs.  Simply put, Internet Explorer expands the Windows development platform and Opera, Firefox and Chrome are merely web browsing applications.

Removing or Locking the Code Will Break Programs & Raise Development Costs.  There is a significant risk that a broad range of applications written for the Windows operating system would be “broken” by a requirement to remove or disable pieces of IE code.  The breadth of the problem will be determined by exactly how the remedy is implemented, but it is clear that many programs will need to be fixed if those APIs are not still accessible for developers.  Regardless, this kind of change to Windows will place a new burden on developers.  They will need to test their applications on this new version of Windows and create versions that will work on Windows installations that have the APIs and those that do not. 

If application developers cannot depend on these API’s being available in every installation of Windows, they will need to develop the technology independently or license it from Microsoft and integrate it directly into their products.  Either solution would substantially increase the cost and development time for their products, shifting the burden from Microsoft to ISVs.  Instead of this core functionality being tested once by a large company with substantial resources, it will need to be integrated and tested thousands of times by small companies with diverse expertise and specialization.

Freezing Windows In Time Will Cripple the Platform ISVs Depend On.  The biggest worry for ISVs, however, is not the Commission’s interest in ripping Internet Explorer’s code out of Windows or disabling it. The biggest threat is a precedent that prevents Microsoft from continuing to innovate at all on Windows the development platform.  Throughout the years, Windows has evolved to integrate new technologies that made the lives of users and software developers easier.  At one point or another, technologies that are now considered core operating system functionality (graphics drivers, printer drivers, audio drivers, networking drivers, etc.) were not integrated into the operating system. 

For example, one of the most important advancements in Windows Vista was a total rewrite of the printing substructure allowing for transportable files (using the XML paper specification) and raster image processing. There are, of course, portable document solutions and commercial raster image processors available on the market today, which thrive because of their focus and specialization. That does not mean that consumers and developers alike did not greatly benefit from this rewriting of the printing substructure. If a developer is building a graphics intensive application (for 3D Modeling for example), this rewriting improves the printing in ways that cannot be matched through the end user installation of a commercial raster image processor.

Future technologies under development include voice and gesture recognition and voice synthesis. Without question, these technologies will become increasingly mainstream and candidates for inclusion in any modern operating system such as Windows so that they might be leveraged by any software developer on that platform.

Must Carry Remedy Could Delay Updates and Harm ISV Development Cycles.  An additional remedy that has been discussed publicly is the idea of forcing Microsoft to carry some number of competing browsers from which users can one to make their default. If adopted, this will necessitate the coordination of multiple companies’ release schedules, with seriously detrimental consequences for software developers and system integrators that rely on the Windows platform. Given the nature and dynamics of the IT industry, it should be obvious that this remedy will lead to a situation where some web browser developers will delay the release of the Windows platform, arguing that Microsoft’s operating system will otherwise ship with inferior versions of their browsers. As a consequence of these factors, any improvement of the Windows platform would be dependent on external factors, leaving developers with outdated platforms and missed delivery dates for their own new products based on the new platform.

In an environment in which software developers can rely on an ever evolving and improving core platform, they are able to focus on their own domain expertise and deliver more value to their customers. It is on behalf of these developers that we have chosen to intervene in this case.