 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
||||||
| Microsoft's Unrequited Love
by John M. Curtis Copyright April 5, 2000
Consumers weren’t hurt—it was another publicly traded competitor. Not a single consumer group or individual complained or objected to Microsoft bundling its web browser, Internet Explorer, with its Windows platform. Registering the complaint in 1975, Netcape Communications, Inc., felt hog-tied because their web browser, Netscape Navigator, couldn’t work with Microsoft Windows—the world’s most popular personal computer operating system. Guess what? Netscape could have developed their own Windows-like program or made use of IBM’s OS/2 or the promising Linux platform. But no, they wanted to interface with Microsoft’s Windows knowing full well that 98% of personal computers ran on Windows. Jump on a good thing! Why not? An intelligent business model to be sure. Only one small glitch: why should Microsoft make public their source codes to enable other web browsers to utilize their Windows operating system? General Motors doesn’t extend the same luxury to Ford for their transmissions or any other parts. Netscape Communications knew all too well that they had the option of utilizing other operating systems or developing their own. Microsoft held no monopoly on their Windows operating system. They just built a better mousetrap and the market rewarded them. Why would any computer manufacturer rock the boat when consumers were demanding Microsoft Windows because of its superiority—or, at the very least, because it’s user friendly? How were consumers harmed by a company that built a better mousetrap and mass marketed its products? In case Janet Reno’s forgotten, Microsoft—not the U.S. government—launched the worldwide personal computer revolution. Where’s the karmic repayment for entrepreneurs like Gates whose single-minded vision of seeing a computer in every household was actually becoming a reality. Without too much amnesia, wasn’t it Microsoft who helped break IBM’s and Apple’s choke-hold on the P.C. market? Wasn’t it Microsoft who made their software available to the affordable clone computer industry? Wasn’t it Microsoft who drove prices down and made personal computers available to all? How did Microsoft use their monopoly power to harm consumers? Bill Gates and company weren’t given the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Nobel Prize for creating the P.C. revolution. No, the government repaid Microsoft’s phenomenal cultural legacy by joining the chorus of sour grapes and suing Microsoft for unfair trade practices. Yes, Microsoft’s a competitive company. But so are countless other American businesses who don’t like giving away their trade secrets. Just ask Coca Cola or Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. When an artist, inventor or whomever develops phenomenal success, are they sued because those less fortunate whine about missed opportunities? No way. When Judge Penfield Jackson compares the computer business to utilities like A,T & T or Standard Oil, who’s he kidding? Software design blends both art and science, and is protected by copyright and patent laws. Can you really say the same for fossil fuels and telephone service? Most rational people know the difference—this isn’t exactly rocket science. Does Ford have the right to sue GM because Ford builds their parts to work exclusively with Ford cars and trucks? I don’t think so. When Toyota and Honda surpassed Ford and GM as the most popular passenger cars sold in America, did Ford and GM sue the Japanese auto industry for building better cars? No, Ford methodically dissected Japanese products and did their utmost to imitate them. That’s free enterprise and the American way. Getting down to business, the government’s action against Microsoft gained steam—and deep pockets—only after AOL purchased Netscape Communications, Inc.—the maker of the competitive browser, Netscape Navigator. After buying Netscape, AOL pushed to find some way to resuscitate a dead dog—the notion that they could market their browser to computer makers. What better way could they find than to lobby congress and the D.O.J. to blame Microsoft for their own bad move? Consumers could care less about Netscape Navigator. They only cared about surfing the net, something already included with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. No one gave a hoot about which browser they used. Including a free browser with Microsoft Windows was all that mattered. Trumpeting Penfield Jackson’s ruling as a victory for consumers is mind boggling. Consumers aren’t helped by attacking the nation’s number one software manufacturer and sending the stock market into a tailspin. "The Judge’s ruling was likely to help foster competition in subtle ways and the lawsuit has already done some good," claimed Sun Microsystems general counsel Michael Morris. Optimistic as that sounds, building a better mousetrap is no easy feat. Just ask IBM, Linux or Apple. They’ll all attest to how it’s difficult to improve upon 'perfection.' Like the old VW beetle, Volkswagen engineers strived every year to improve their product—no matter how minor or invisible. Is Microsoft any different? Blaming Bill Gates for not capitulating to the D.O.J. is like telling Hurricane Carter to confess. If Gates didn’t play by the rules, it wasn’t the ones found in the Sherman Antitrust Act. So far, he’s guilty of violating the basic rule of political correctness. He didn’t always say the rights things or acquiesce to the government’s spin. But why should he?—he’s Bill Gates. About the Author John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. |
||||||
aking another bite out of free enterprise, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated the 100 year old Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the web browser market. Turning antitrust law on its head,"This opinion will . . . set the ground rules for enforcement in the Information Age," said assistant attorney general for antitrust in the U.S Justice Department, Joel Klein. Pounding his chest and 'high-fiveing' Janet Reno, Klein trumpeted, "It demonstrates once again that no company, no matter how powerful or successful, can refuse to play by the rules and thwart competition for America’s consumers." Quite a mouthful from someone who composed his arguments and legal briefs on Microsoft Word. Beyond the hyperbole, Klein’s red herring exposed the diaphanous fallacy that American consumers were harmed by Microsoft’s predacious practices.|
Home || Articles || Books || The Teflon Report || Reactions || About Discobolos This site designed, developed and hosted by the experts at ©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc. |
