| BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE : NOVEMBER 22, 1999 ISSUE | ||||||||
| ||||||||
 | ||||||||
| COVER STORY -- THE MICROSOFT RULING
Commentary: The Burden of Being a Misunderstood Monopolist A dark aura of Greek tragedy always shadows business titans caught up in antitrust cases. The strengths that served them well in forging their empires are abruptly converted into baffling political liabilities. And the harder they try to wriggle free from this snare, the more ominously it tightens around them. Like John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, William H. Gates III has been bedeviled by a discrepancy between his benign view of his career and the rapacious image evoked by a judge. Where Rockefeller talked in evangelical tones of bestowing cheap oil on the masses, Gates has identified his mission as bettering people's lives through software. When such a virtuous self-image collides with the blunt judgments of an antitrust case, it's no surprise that the target feels deeply wounded and exhibits angry emotions verging on paranoia. Standard Oil dominated the Industrial Age as Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) does the Information Age. Rockefeller and Gates belong to that breed of visionaries who remorselessly implement blueprints for their industries. They never doubt themselves, waver in their faith, or settle for partial victories. Both men produced corporate cultures marked by incessant self-criticism and a relentless, almost insatiable, need to win. They somehow managed to blend idealism with raw aggression, the two moods implausibly feeding one another. Like all great business moguls, they trusted their own intuitions even when that meant defying the world. Such messianic executives can't adapt to the smooth arts of compromise required in antitrust cases. They can't help bringing the fighting spirit of the boardroom into the courtroom. Rockefeller rejected a negotiated settlement with the Justice Dept. and never fully conceded the legitimacy of the Standard Oil suit. On the witness stand, he lost his fantastic memory and mutated into a sweetly forgetful, slightly senile old man. After the Supreme Court ordered the breakup of his trust in 1911, he pointedly refused to read the landmark opinion. SELECTIVE AMNESIA. In his videotaped deposition, Gates mimicked Rockefeller's gift for selective amnesia and testified that he had never read the complaint in the case. This combative spirit, which can be effective in business confrontations, usually backfires in political settings. Gates's video performance in the courthouse played straight into the government's hands. Only belatedly did he realize the value of lobbying and public relations. We don't know if Gates dictated Microsoft's legal strategy, but such a strong, visceral leader wouldn't defer to hired experts who challenged his instincts. As he ponders his next move, Gates finds himself in a very different position from Rockefeller, who was a 71-year-old retiree, a devotee of God and golf, when Standard Oil was dismantled. Gates, 44, may have 20 years left in business. Despite the severity of the remedies now being mooted, it might be wise for him to contemplate a settlement. With the computer world convulsed by frenetic change, a continuing lawsuit might dampen Microsoft's creative spark and accelerate an exodus of the best minds to lucrative Internet startups. Gates has cited the vital importance of personnel in a business based on perpetual innovation. If Microsoft lost its top 30 people, he has asserted, it would quickly surrender its preeminence. Another question for him to ponder: Could Microsoft retain all those talented people during the oppressive years of appeals, with every major decision vetted by lawyers? It might kill the intense, free-wheeling culture Gates has fostered. Whatever one thinks of the government case, one can sympathize with Gates's perplexity. Long lionized for restoring America's technological supremacy, he is now demonized when that success is perfected. It must all be terribly disorienting for him. Public relations can make cosmetic changes in his image, but he's probably incapable of toning down his pugnacious, disputatious style--the very style that enabled him to form the world's most valuable company. Microsoft is Bill Gates writ large. With the government now demanding fundamental alterations in the firm, this will mean fundamental alterations in the founder. But how does Gates discard his nervous system, root out his reflexes, and suppress the headstrong habits ingrained during 24 years at the helm of Microsoft? By Ron Chernow Chernow is the author of Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BACK TO TOP |
|  |
 | |
RELATED ITEMS Does a Breakup Make Sense? COVER IMAGE: Microsoft: Does a Breakup Make Sense? TABLE: No Easy Fixes Who Can Sue Commentary: The Burden of Being a Misunderstood Monopolist So What's in the Cards for Microsoft? TABLE: Reshuffling the Deck Commentary: How Intel Played It Right Commentary: The Lessons of the AT&T Breakup INTERACT E-Mail to Business Week Online | |||
