FREE ESSAY ON MICROSOFT CASE

MICROSOFT CASE

There have been many arguments and issues that have been raised with the controversy over
Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice's claim against Microsoft and its founder
Bill Gates of monopolistic practices in bundling its internet browser "Internet Explorer"
into its popular Windows computer operating system. By doing this, Microsoft would
effectively crush its competitors (it's main rival being Netscape Navigator), and acquire
a monopoly over the software that people use to access the Internet.
I recently heard a listener on NPR (National Public Radio) comment about the monopoly
issue between Microsoft and the U.S. D.O.J. that "Intellectual endeavors are vastly
infinite and thus cannot be monopolized." I wonder if the person who said this has ever
tried telling that to Bill Gates. More importantly, is such a statement true? Does
computer software constitute an intellectual endeavor that cannot be monopolized? To
answer this issue, an inductive argument can be applied to determine if Microsoft truly
has a monopoly over the computer industry. To say that something is infinite implies that
there is an endless supply of it. Is this the case in terms of the Internet and the
software that is used to "navigate" or "explore" the Internet as the two leading Internet
Browsers have been dubbed by their makers? The resources of the Internet may seem
infinitely vast, but it is wholly finite. There is an abundance of information out there
on the Internet that it seems unlikely that any one company or even a country like the
U.S. could ever monopolize this vast data network. By the nature of how the Internet
works and how information is stored and shared on the network, it is true that a monopoly
cannot be held over the intellectual information stored within the Internet. On this
point I will accede to the original author's claim that intellectual endeavors cannot be
monopolized, but this is vastly different from the issue that stands before Microsoft and
the U.S. Department of Justice. The question that must be distinguished is not if
Microsoft will gain a monopoly over the Internet, but if it will acquire a monopoly on
how people access the Internet. These two are wholly separate issues. This is not a
question of control of intellectual information, but the means by which people gain
*access* to that information. Even if the information provided by the Internet was
infinite, the tools by which to get to that information is not. And thus a monopoly of
the software to gain access to the Internet is very much possible. There are many
corridors and keys that allow someone to gain access to the Internet. The real question
here is whether Microsoft is seeking to widen it's doors at the expense of others and at
the same time seeking gatekeeper access to the Internet by seeking to obtain the only key
that allows access to the Internet. A metaphor of this problem can be explained through a
library building that has many entrances in which to reach the knowledge of books
contained within. Is Microsoft seeking to close off the other entrances of other
providers so that the only access is through its entrance? It would be very tempting to
say yes, but that would be wholly unfair. Now that the problem and issue which is
presented to us is clear, an examination of whether or not Microsoft is violating any
anti-trust (anti-monopolistic) laws can now proceed.
Before he installed Windows 95, John Dodge connected to the Internet using software from
a Microsoft competitor, CompuServe's Internet in a Box. Not anymore. Windows 95 silently
disabled a key piece of his setup and made it too difficult for him to reinstall it.
Dodge was not a novice. He is senior executive editor of the trade journal PC Week and so
had access to the highest level support engineers. Even software professionals learn to
take the path of least resistance, in this case, the path leading to Microsoft. He has
become a regular user of the new Microsoft Network, though he has trouble with its
Internet features. Still, he believes Microsoft executives when they deny trying to gain
market share by sabotaging competitors' software. He just wonders whether Microsoft has a
full appreciation of its actions in the marketplace. There is reason to believe that
Microsoft does (Gleick 1). If a seasoned computer expert was unable to disable the bug
planted by Microsoft's operating system then how are normal everyday lay people supposed
to contend against any sabotage which could be silently planted into our computers
without our knowledge?
In another response from a computer industry leader, we get a glimpse of the power
Microsoft has and the potential power which it is capable of wielding in the future. I
personally believe that Microsoft is the most powerful economic force in the United
States in the second half of the 20th century, says Eric Schmidt, chief technology
officer of Sun Microsystems, a minicomputer and networking company whose business used to
be remote from Microsoft's but now finds itself under direct competitive pressure. Some
of Microsoft's control over computing, at all levels, is obvious. Much, however, is
invisible. Even longtime insiders are just beginning to understand the nature of that
power: how Microsoft acquired it, preserves it and exercises it. Schmidt is not alone in
his views in the computer world. The question of what to do about Microsoft is going to
be a central public policy issue for the next 20 years, says Mitchell Kapor, the founder
and former CEO of Lotus Development Corporation, once the leading PC software company.
Policymakers don't understand the real character of Microsoft yet, the sheer
will-to-power that Microsoft has (Gleick 2-3). 
Netscape recently released its source codes. This move by Netscape caused a shock within
the computer industry. These codes which are closely guarded secrets of computer
programmers acts very much like a Rosetta Stone that deciphers the programming language.
The owners of Netscape did this in the hopes of being able to compete against Microsoft's
Internet Explorer in the browser market. By allowing other programmers to view the
programming framework, Netscape also hoped that the combined forces would allow its
Internet browser to evolve much more rapidly in public hands than in private development.
By doing this, Netscape made no immediate economic gains, but hopes its product will
survive to evolve and compete against Microsoft even long after the company Netscape is
gone (NPR News May 5). This was seen almost like an act of desperation on the part of
Netscape as a last ditch effort to combat the threat of efforts of Microsoft to dominate
the Internet browser market.
Even as I use this word processing program (Microsoft Word) to type this essay I do not
have to worry about spelling "Microsoft" correctly. The auto spell checker underlines in
red any misspelling of "Microsoft" to ensure that I spell its maker's name correctly. I
wonder if this program had any sentience, would it seek to destroy my essay which
criticizes its maker, or would it just shut down completely and prevent me from typing
any further? Fortunately, I do have the original word processing program which I can
always load into the computer again. I also have the option of using another word
processing program besides that of Microsoft's (even though there is a dearth of
non-Microsoft word processing programs), such as Lotus Wordperfect. I could also switch
my operating system over to IBM's OS2, which shares only a small fraction of all the
computer operating systems in the world. Microsoft holds upwards of an amazing 90% or
more of the computer operating system market in the entire world. This is a remarkable
feat considering the vast market of computers and the incredible diversity of languages
used throughout the world. I could even be radical and abandon the Windows operating
system and switch my IBM computer over to an Apple Macintosh, but alas, even there,
Microsoft has already encroached upon its only remaining rival. Having already written
software programs for the Macintosh, Microsoft has tightened its noose further around its
competition by investing heavily into a troubled Apple Computer company. This almost
ensures that Microsoft will gain a strong foothold in the last of its major competitors.
When this news of Microsoft's investment into Apple Computers was announced at an Apple
Computer user convention, the audience met the news with boos and outbursts of dismay.
These protesters may share a common view that Microsoft is a threat to diversity and
competition in the computer industry.
In looking at the Microsoft corporation I am reminded of a cybernetic nemesis in the
science fiction series "Star Trek: The Next Generation". This foe of all sentient life
was named "The Borg", and in first encountering a new species which it almost always
assimilates into its "collective" they say, "We are the Borg. Surrender to us. Resistance
is futile!" A parody of this statement I have seen on the Internet to persuade people to
join the small resistance group of Apple Macintosh users against Microsoft and IBM
desktop type computers is "Resistance is fruitful, use a Macintosh!"
Capitalism and a market economy stress that competition is good for business and
consumers. The proponents of monopolies stress that monopolies are efficient and provide
the best use of resources instead of wasting them on competition. These same reasons were
espoused by the "Rober Barrons" of the past who were seen as evils of their time. Upton
Sinclair even wrote a novel about them entitled The Octopus to depict the menacing arms
of the monopolies that sought to destroy competition (Nader and Love 2). The anti-trust
and anti-monopolistic laws that resulted from that era served to protect capitalism and
the free market economy. Monopolies represent the antithesis of the ideals found within a
capitalistic and free market economy. The economic destructiveness of monopolies in our
own times can be seen through the recent fall of the communist regimes who practiced
government controlled monopolies that led to the economic turmoil and decline in their
countries. It would be a wise lesson to take heed of the lessons of past and present
monopolies to stop the takeover of access to the Internet which Microsoft is seeking to
do. It seeks to achieve this control by bundling its browser into its operating system
which already controls 90% of the worlds' market. 
The ubiquitous nature of Microsoft in our everyday computing lives is seemingly
subconscious, yet when we realize the broad influence of this computer giant upon our
life it becomes a frightening possibility. Thoughts of Orwellian "Big Brother" comes to
mind at times. The question of whether Microsoft has a monopoly over the computer
industry is a resounding yes. It is a near virtual monopoly in the computer industry. The
question thus becomes not whether Microsoft is a monopoly, but why it has taken so long
for the government to intercede into the affairs that would regulate this ever growing
computer giant. It would be wise to follow the lesson of Jack who cut down the beanstalk
in a fable that has all too real applications in our modern-day computerized world.
Bibliography
Gleick, James. "MAKING MICROSOFT SAFE FOR CAPITALISM" The New York Times Magazine.
William Morris Agency, May 18, 1995.
Nader, Ralph and Love, James. "What to Do About Microsoft?" LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE,
November 1997
NPR News. May 5 1998 (Station KBRW 89.9 FM) 8:00 AM "Morning Edition"