The Trib ran another "Don't break Windows" editorial today. I can't
understand how a newspaper that's ordinarily so gung-ho over open markets and
consumer choice would carry on like a PR hack for Microsoft.
Anyway, I saw red and fired off another missive to try and set them straight.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Microsoft Editorial
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:23:45 -0500
From: Tim Wright <t.wright1@mindspring.com>
To: tribletters@tampatrib.com
Microsoft was found guilty of unlawfully using its monopoly in operating
systems (MS-Windows) to suppress competition in the applications software
market. Rockefeller's Standard Oil did similar things to keep rivals' oil
from reaching the marketplace. They were dirty, underhanded tricks back then,
and they still are today.
The nine dissenting states are exercising their right to disagree. They don't
think the sweetheart deal offered by the government does enough, and I'm with
them on that point. The proposed settlement does not have the teeth to
prevent Microsoft from thumbing its nose at the law yet again. This is the
same Microsoft that willfully violated consent decrees which eventually led
up to this antitrust case.
At issue is Microsoft bundling applications into its operating system. The
operating system is the support infrastructure to run the computer and not
much more. Applications programs do specific useful tasks: word processing,
e-mail, spreadsheets, etc. Applications use operating system services, but
they should not be part of the underlying operating system. There are valid
technical reasons for doing this. It's like a car: the engine, transmission,
frame and suspension run the vehicle. Air conditioning, radio, tinted glass,
upholstery and seats make it useful. I can change, upgrade, or remove what I
want to suit my needs: replace the radio, remove the air conditioning, add a
sunroof, etc. If Microsoft built my car, then a fault in the air conditioning
would make the radio, engine and transmission fail as well, maybe deploy the
airbags to boot.
The dissenting states' requirement for unbundling applications from the
operating system would require Microsoft to acknowledge that there are other
software companies out there who have equal right for a place in the market.
This would complement, not contradict the DOJ requirement for Microsoft to
reveal some of the inner workings of Windows that they use to their
advantage. Instead of competing on an equal footing, Microsoft built its Web
browser, media player, instant messenger, and other applications into the
Windows operating system. The price for Windows goes up, but consumers don't
have much choice when practically all new computers already have Windows
installed. If I don't want MS-Internet explorer or MS-Media Player, or
instant messenger, etc, why should I be obliged to buy them and store them in
my computer?
Standard Oil also practically gave away its products for free. After the
competition went broke, they gouged the consumer. We're seeing this already:
I can buy one of at least four competing versions of Linux for about $65, or
I can buy the only MS-Windows XP for about $600. MS-Office XP costs about
$400 right now, but how much higher would the price be if there wasn't a
Lotus SmartSuite or Corel WordPerfect Office to compete?
Microsoft should have been broken up into an operating system company
(Windows) and an applications company (everything else). A century of
antitrust law has proven that to be the most effective fix for a monopoly.
Barring that, the people deserve a remedy that will prevent Microsoft from
breaking the law again. The dissenting states are holding out for a real
remedy for these crimes, not a slap on the wrist. It's not breaking Windows;
it's letting vital fresh air into the market.
-------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:25:58 EDT