Biggest Kid on the Block Needn’t Be a Bully
Like ghosts within our PCs, computer operating systems work largely out of sight. These seemingly unobtrusive software programs, however, have great authority over our cybernetic lives, determining which tasks we can accomplish on our computers and how hard those tasks will be.
More than 90% of all personal computer operating systems worldwide are designed by Microsoft, and the company has been working tirelessly to expand its influence even further. Chairman Bill Gates is cutting deals to ensure that Microsoft operating systems govern not only how we use computers but phones, TVs and cable systems as well. Earlier this month, for instance, Gates and cable mogul John C. Malone began negotiating a deal to let Microsoft’s Windows software access hundreds of future digital cable TV channels.
Microsoft’s growing market clout has increasingly led critics to accuse it of undermining competitiveness. Earlier this week, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno sided with those critics, accusing the computer giant of “unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows monopoly . . . to undermine consumer choice,” and she asked a federal judge to impose a fine of $1 million a day.
Reno’s chief allegation is solid: She argues that Microsoft is violating a 1995 agreement by forcing personal computer makers to load Microsoft’s Internet browsing program, Internet Explorer, on each machine equipped with a Microsoft operating system. Microsoft had promised the Justice Department that it would allow computer makers to load Windows 95 without requiring other Microsoft programs.
Microsoft argues that because the Internet has become so essential to users its browser should not be viewed as an add-on program but rather as an integral component of any personal computer’s operating system, a tool as needed as the program that turns a computer on.
Computer marketing surveys, however, show that the Internet has yet to become this essential in most PC users’ lives. And U.S. antitrust law says that two products can be viewed as merged into one not when their manufacturer claims they are but when most users view them as one.
It is unlikely that the Justice Department can do much to keep Gates from realizing his boldest ambition--making Windows the tool most consumers use to watch TV, make phone calls and use computers. That’s not the job of Justice. On the contrary, a thriving Microsoft is an asset to a thriving America, and Gates cannot be blamed for creatively seeking ways to increase his sales and keep Microsoft’s highly priced stocks from losing value. But Gates should have more faith in the superiority of his products, letting them rise on their inherent merits. The goal should be inspiring, not stifling, innovation.
