Check today's Tampa Tribune for an editorial on the Microsoft Case. I
disagree completely with all their arguments, and you'd think the piece was
ghostwritten by a Microsoft hack.
Attached is a copy of a letter I sent today. I'd suggest that anybody else
out there who has a problem with the Trib's position to write a letter to the
editor.
Here's my two cents' worth:
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Tim Wright <t.wright1@mindspring.com>
To: tribletters@tampatrib.com
Subject: Microsoft Editorial
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:07:38 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0201261307380F.01483@noname.nodomain.nowhere>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: RO
X-Status: Q
I have to take exception to your editorial of 26 January. It's the Justice
Department's proposed settlement that is doing the public no favor. Microsoft
has systematically eliminated competition in the desktop computing market
through unlawful means. This was established in the trial and upheld though
appeal. Instead of building a better mousetrap, Microsoft resorted to
strong-arm methods to maintain its monopoly position. What the public needs
is a remedy to restore competition to this market, and the nine states that
didn't sign up to the Justice Department's proposed settlement are seeking
that.
Your argument that breaking up Windows will raise prices fails to take the
marketplace into account. When users have a choice of several competing
applications, prices will go down and quality will go up. Opponents of the
AT&T Bell System bereakup in 1986 offered the same empty argument: this will
hurt the consumer. History has shown us different. Like the Bell System
breakup, we're dismantling a monopoly that provided adequate service to
restore competition and real innovation. There can be no real innovation with
only one player (Microsoft) in the market.
Remember when you couldn't own your telephone? Or having to pay extra for
every extension in your house? This sounds a lot like Microsoft's perpetual
upgrade game and software leasing program. Remember when you didn't have any
choice between dial and touch tone? You took what the phone company told you
to take, and if you didn't like the cost of long distance, too bad. This
looks a lot like Microsoft's licensing agreement with computer manufacturers.
That was how we had it when there was only one telephone company. The phones
always worked under the Bell System, and we got by, because it was all we had
and knew. Breaking up the Microsoft monopoly will benefit the public as much
as breaking up AT&T into the Baby Bells.
The argument about the chilling effect on innovation is ludicrous. Microsoft
destroyed competition in the web browser market by unlawfully bundling
Internet Explorer into Windows. The Court was very clear on that. Netscape
distributed its browser for free before Microsoft made its move, and there
are currently several browsers offered for free to the public or at prices
well below that of the Windows operating system attached to Internet
Explorer: Netscape, Konqueror, Mozilla, and Opera just to name four. We're
likely to see more if the market is opened to competition. As your editorial
cited in this case, the inventor, Microsoft, would give up property, Internet
Explorer, as part of a court remedy because it was used unlawfully. That's
hardly a penalty for innovation. Bank robbers don't get their guns back,
either.
The third reason cited fails to take into account that the people represented
by the dissenting states disagreed with the initial plea bargain offered by
the Justice Department. The fault lies with the government for not taking
large enough measures to assure Microsoft's unlawful business practices will
stop. This is the same Microsoft that violated a consent decree by leaving
Internet Explorer bundled into Windows 98.
The problems with security and malicious code: Nimda, Code Red, numerous
other viruses/worms/trojans, and the security holes in Windows that allow
hackers to remotely take over machines are a symptom of the problem. If there
was any real competition out there, would Windows be so vulnerable? When
there was competition in the software market during the 1980s, we saw
tremendous growth and innovation. Desktop computers began taking on functions
that used to belong solely to mainframes. That growth has stagnated now that
Microsoft has dominated the market. We're already seeing foreign governments
and businesses in China, Latin America, and Europe rejecting Windows for
security reasons. In time, this could lead to America losing it's pre-eminent
position in software development.
Microsoft has enjoyed a monopoly position for too long. We see the effects
every day with reports of new viruses and security problems with Windows and
Microsoft applications. Problems that Microsoft claims to have corrected, if
you pay for the next upgrade. Competition must be restored to the
marketplace, and that means breaking up Microsoft and breaking up Windows,
the same as breaking up Standard Oil and AT&T. When it comes to saying
"enough," the people have had enough of the Microsoft monopoly.
I know I've exceeded your 150-word guideline, but I have strong feelings
concerning this case. I'm not a computer professional, but I do use them
every day in my work as an engineer. There are alternatives to Microsoft
products out there, and many work a lot better for less money. This case is
all about choice. Microsoft built a monopoly, then unlawfully maintained it.
When we have no choice but to use what Microsoft says we'll use at the price
they dictate, it's time to restore competition to the marketplace.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:45:53 EDT