Re: Should the Fed Gov break up Microsoft? No

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Mike Westerfield writes ...
> 
 ....
> 
> > Tend to disagree. Microsoft has done a good job of delivering a decent
> > standard OS for PC machines. If they were close to having a monopoly it
> > is because millions of users 'voted' for Microsoft products.
> 
> Much as I hate Windows, I can't find any fault with this. While it's
> possible for the government to go after a company merely for existing as a
> monopoly, I can't think of any cases where they have. In other words,
> _being_ a monopoly is not what triggers government action.
> 
> The problem with Microsoft is that they have used this monopoly
> position to force other companies into decisions they did not want to
> make.
> 
> Think of it as the difference between being big and powerful and being the
> schoolyard bully: We respect big, powerful people and try to get them on
> the football team, but we tend to punish bullies.
 ....

     Or, we just call those who are successful "bullies" in order to avoid
criticism when we use government power against them.

     There is nothing forcing anyone to install Windows or any other piece of
software from Microsoft. If Microsoft wants to sell more of its products and
sets up Windows 2000 to hate QuickTime, RealPlayer, or whatever, that is
nobody's business but Microsoft's.

     The cost to Microsoft could be lost business and increased interest in
alternatives. On the other hand, users may go along with the limitations. (Or
Apple and the Real Player people may adjust their products to work with
Windows 2000.)  Such strategems and buyer decisions are what a free
marketplace is about.

     Having the sock to make things rough on the competition is one of the
rewards for success. (That's why they call it "competition".)  So is being
able to "force other companies into decisions they did not want to make".
Major corporations do it every day. When smaller companies can, they do it,
too.

     Corporations serve the public good by delivering products and services
which people like enough to purchase and by paying employees. Conversely,
government meddling is almost always a perscription for disaster. Look at
what happened to phone service and prices after the breakup of 'The Phone
Company'.

     There was no government action against Apple when, for all those years,
it limited its mouse and windows OS to a very small market. Yet, it is easy
to make a case that Apple's actions did more damage to worldwide personal
computing than anything Microsoft has ever done or attempted.

     Again, though, Apple was within its rights in saying: "Hey, you want the
cool Apple OS? Well, you gotta _buy_ a cool Apple computer."

     Since the early 90's, Microsoft has faced remarkably inept, no-vision
competition. If, thanks to Netscape, AOL, Linux, etc., this is changing,
fine. This is no time for bungling government "solutions". Let users choose
the winners. Let the fur fly! 



Rubywand