In a point-by-point argument contained in , VMware claimed that Microsoft is "leveraging its ownership of the market-leading operating system" to restrict customer choice. VMware also detailed "tactics" that it said are an "attempt to force" users to buy bundles of Microsoft products.
Srinivas Krishnamurti, VMware's director of product management and market development, said in an interview that the EMC Corp. subsidiary is trying to bring its concerns to the attention of customers in the hope that they will seek changes from Microsoft.
"We want to highlight the terms that are not in the best interest of customers," Krishnamurti said. "The hope is that the industry evolves and provides a much more open and interoperable environment in the virtualization landscape."
VMware, by its own estimate, controls more than 80 percent of the virtualization market. And the company has been so confident of its market position that at its annual VMworld user conference last fall, it allowed competitors, including Microsoft, to on the trade show floor. That's what makes VMware's new posting so striking.
VMware's white paper points to seven specific issues, including customer support. For instance, VMware asserted that Microsoft requires VMware users to have its Premier-level support if they run into an issue with Windows or other Microsoft products in a virtualized environment. Otherwise, Microsoft may request that a user first replicate the problem on a physical machine. Krishnamurti said there is no technical reason for that requirement.
Another issue, according to VMware, involves the application programming interfaces for the upcoming Longhorn Server version of Windows "that manage communication between Windows and Microsoft's hypervisor" -- its virtual machine software. Microsoft disclosed specifications for the APIs at its WinHEC conference last June "but is not permitting use of these APIs by other virtualization vendors or open-source projects," VMware claimed. The only exception, it added, is Novell Inc., which signed a technology licensing and joint development with Microsoft in November.
Asked for a response, Microsoft issued a statement from Mike Neil, its general manager for virtualization strategy.
"Windows server licensing offers a level playing field to all," wrote Neil. "To encourage interoperability, we openly share technology and have published a set of APIs for all our commercially available virtualization products today, and provided documentation on APIs for the hypervisor that will be part of the next version of Windows Server, code-named Longhorn. We desire open dialogue among industry vendors and will talk with any company wishing to discuss licensing for future products."
Neil went into more detail about Microsoft's virtualization strategy in , dated Feb. 24, in which he said he is confident that Microsoft "will provide customers with the most integrated solutions and the most cost-effective platform."
VMware's allegations echo the antitrust claims made against Microsoft by the U.S. government and various states in 1998. The government alleged that Microsoft used its operating systems dominance to thwart other OS and browser makers, such as Netscape, which previously had dominated the browser market.
Previously, in response to questions about a potential competition problem similar to the one that Netscape faced, VMware officials have said that the virtualization vendor is in a different situation. Its products have been adopted by many enterprises and are deeply integrated into systems and business processes. Moreover, VMware believes that it has a technology edge over Microsoft.
Krishnamurti said VMware isn't commenting about any possible legal action against Microsoft.
Two attorneys who followed the Microsoft antitrust case said that if VMware is thinking about going to court, it will face a difficult path.
The bottom line is, "can you really show that [Microsoft's behavior] is having a significant anticompetitive effect?" said Andy Gavil, an antitrust professor at the Howard University School of Law in Washington. "Can you show that Microsoft has no real business justification for the particular subject of the complaint?"
VMware would have to demonstrate that Microsoft's actions are having a significant impact on competition, increasing costs and lowering quality, Gavil added. "They would have a lot to prove," he said.
Hillard Sterling, an attorney at Freeborn & Peters LLP in Chicago, said that VMware would have to "show real, proven barriers to competition. And even if VMware could satisfy that burden, it faces a separate, and potentially more difficult, battle of getting the remedies it wants."
Bruce McMillan, manager of emerging technologies at Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Marietta, Ga., is using Windows servers in a VMware virtualized environment. McMillan has read the white paper posted by VMware and said he thinks it "is there as a means to help educate people about what's going on."
But he said he hasn't run into the issues outlined in the document. And just because Solvay is using virtualization technology, McMillan added, "it doesn't mean we're going to buy less [Windows] licenses."