Microsoft Ruling Real Injustice to Computer Users
by


This first appeared in the
North Hills News Record

Another pathetic chapter is unfolding in the ongoing saga of the U.S. Justice Department vs. Microsoft. Anyone who still naively believed this case had anything to do with justice should have been snapped from their foolish reverie by the events of last week.

On November 5, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson concluded that Microsoft used illegal business tactics to destroy threats to its monopoly. The findings, which shocked many legal scholars, fall short of a full ruling. But they suggest that the Microsoft empire, the world's largest software company, is on the brink of legal penalties that could go as far as a total breakup. (Read the full text findings.)

To fully understand the stupidity behind the Justice Department's latest decision, it helps to know how the overzealous prosecutors define Microsoft's market share. To them, the computer "market" means only single-user computers with Intel microprocessors.

That means all Apple computers, including the popular new iMac, don't count. They make up almost 10 percent of the personal computer market but they use Motorola microprocessors.

The Justice Department's market definition also excludes Sun Microsystems network systems. They're used by thousands of companies and for the most part, they still perform like a desktop computer.

Subnotebooks and handheld computers, like 3Com's best-selling Palm Pilot don't count into the government's fantasy equation either, even if the units have keyboards, word processors and e-mail capabilities.

By so grossly distorting what defines the computer market, the Justice Department can arrogantly assert that Microsoft maintains a monopoly thereby paving the way to finally crush it.

On the evening of the most recent ruling, the Justice Department didn't hold it's usual dull press conference. It was celebrating like it was 1999.

Destroying Microsoft, nailing Bill Gates, seizing a spot in the history books and justifying the existence of an otherwise defunct government agency is what this whole trial is really all about.

From Microsoft's infancy, Bill Gates has never shown the slightest bit of interest in the bureaucratic B.S. in Washington. He didn't see the need to pander to the paper-shufflers, pump up political campaign coffers or lobby the good ol' boy network. That he ignored the political protocol for so many years has been his undoing.

Bad boy Bill Gates decided he'd just make software that would enable the average person--the person who still has trouble programming a VCR--to use a computer.

He figured the consumer and the marketplace would take care of the rest. That kind of attitude would inflame any bored bureaucrat.

The irony of this whole situation is that the whole scene has been played out before. Twenty years ago, the Justice Department, in its myopic vision of the marketplace, took IBM to court.

IBM's "crime" was similar to Microsoft's. It had become a large, well-heeled company.

The suit against IBM dragged on for 13 years and over 66 million pages of documents were filed. Eventually, the Justice department dropped the case because it had to acknowledge that both the structure of the computer industry and the technology in it had completely changed.

What eventually brought the mighty Big Blue back into line? Just one of many examples was the young college kid who was buying excess IBM inventory, customizing it and then re-selling the personal computers to eager customers.

His dorm room looked like a small factory. His office was the back of his car. In a few short months, his small company was pulling in over $50,000 worth of sales a month.

During his summer break in 1984, the 19-year-old incorporated his company to create Dell Corporation. The rest is history.

What will the marketplace look like tomorrow? Who will be the dominant players? That's anyone's guess.

The power brokers in Washington don't like that. Steve Case of AOL likes to say the future of technology will be decided in the political arena rather than the marketplace. It's sadly prophetic, but the case against Microsoft proves him right.

© Copyright Deborah A. Ayers 1999. All rights reserved.