a disservice to joe public 21 of may, 1998 by johnmichael patrick monty monteith

Well, I just sent off a letter to Janet Reno asking her to no longer pretend to be acting in my interest. What the hell are these people thinking? If you ever needed proof that the Federal Government has no idea how new technology works, you need look no further than their current war against Microsoft Corporation. Not that I would defend Microsoft. Far from it. There is no question that Microsoft has been successful due to monopolistic practices. No one would argue that Microsoft has made their Donald Trump Lotto size monthly statements from quality products. However, the battles the Feds chose have zero interest in serving the public. Instead they were constructed by Netscape Corporation to fight a battle they could not afford to on their own.

Before I speak to the current battle lines, lets talk about what this lawsuit should have been about. Microsoft's real monopoly, as we all know, is on software applications. Microsoft Word did not become the number one word processor because it was the best. In fact, it was one of the worst. But because Microsoft writes the operating system the product runs on, they can make it virtually impossible for other application vendors to survive. Either by giving away the product in package deals with the OS, or by weeding out the competition in tweaks to the OS. Microsoft took over the word processing market, database market, spreadsheet market, programming language market, and so on, all through this monopoly.

Once Microsoft has control of the market, everyone must buy their product to remain compatible. So, the money then rolls on in and the monopoly continues on it's present course. The Feds should have been suing Microsoft when they monopolized WordPerfect, Lotus, Borland, and the countless other companies that have fallen victim to this scheme. In many ways the competing product was better (or even still is), but because Microsoft owns the market, nobody can do anything about it.

Well, how is this different than the current lawsuit? The difference is Netscape. The difference is that, unlike WordPerfect to Word, or Quattro Pro to Excel, Netscape Navigator is not as good as Microsoft Internet Explorer. The difference is that Explorer really is not competing with Navigator at all. Unlike the competition between Word and WordPerfect, Microsoft decided to give away Explorer for free this time. In fact, Explorer is a standard feature in Windows 98. In addition, most everyone concedes that Microsoft's free browser is actually considerably better than Netscape Navigator.

So, currently Joe Public can get a better product from Microsoft for free. And I am supposed to believe that Joe Public is upset about this? And the United States government is acting in Mr. Public's interest by stopping Microsoft from just giving away product for free?? What's next? I hear Pioneer is waiting in line to have Janet Reno lay down a suit against Honda for including Honda CD players in their cars for free.

This is insane. The real issue here is that Netscape knows nobody is going to download their product anymore because Windows already has a better product installed for free. Netscape knows they have just been eliminated from the browser market. So, what do they do? Do they hire some lawyers and sue Microsoft? No. They know they would lose. Instead, they start the cry baby campaign. They whine to the Government about monopolistic practice and force the government to pay for the court case against Microsoft. "Waaah. Microsoft is giving away better software for free. Waaaah. Please stop them government. Waaah."

Is stopping Microsoft from giving away product somehow going to serve you and me? No. Auto-makers include stereos in their cars for free, and if Joe Public wants a different stereo, they can go buy one and install it. This same strategy is true for the browser market. Now if Microsoft made it impossible for Netscape software to be installed, that would be a different story. But that has not happened (yet). Therefore, until it happens, Ms. Reno and the rat pack of attorneys should realize that they are the ones doing a disservice to the public. If Microsoft wants to include all of their applications for free in Windows, by all means, let it happen. The real fight should be about the products they are charging for. That is where the real monopoly is.

I will be the first to say I believe that US Government should take steps to govern Microsoft's application development for their own operating systems. In fact, I would even be in support of banning Microsoft from development of applications for Windows. It is a conflict of interest for a monopoly operating system manufacturer to write software for their own system. Furthermore it has proven to be a lethal combination for any rival application that fetches anything more than a hundred bucks. But, the products Microsoft includes in the OS as standard features, and the applications it hands out for free, well that is just icing for putting up with the real monopolistic applications. Microsoft should be allowed, even encouraged, to give away for free any software it likes. Yet, Microsoft should be questioned on anything it is selling. Until it starts charging for Navigator, the Government should let this one be.