A Bundle of Contradictions

At a New York City press conference aimed at dissuading the Justice Department from holding up the June 25 release of Windows 98, Microsoft executives thundered that any delay in the release of the operating system would have “broad negative consequences . . . [for the] entire PC industry” and “throw sand into the gears of human progress.”

Pretty bold words coming from a company that, in congressional testimony only two months ago, insisted it held no monopolistic sway over the computer industry, much less over human progress.

Bill Gates has always been pushing a weak argument in insisting that Microsoft is not a monopoly because its Windows operating systems “could be replaced overnight.” After all, replacing Windows, which runs more than 90% of the world’s computers, would mean rewriting most software written for Windows, and that’s hardly an overnight job. And in admitting at the Tuesday press conference to the overarching influence of their company, Microsoft executives underscored the absurdity of Gates’ claim.

There’s nothing unlawful about Microsoft’s Windows monopoly. But the Justice Department is right to investigate and, if necessary, to restrict Microsoft’s use of the monopoly to move into new markets. Justice Department attorney Joel I. Klein understands this distinction. Recounting how Microsoft executive Bob Herbold recently admitted that upstart companies stood little chance of developing products that could be “bundled” into Windows, Klein says, “I want a world in which Microsoft can innovate . . . but I want to say to everyone in America that you can be the next Microsoft.”

That’s the way it should be. The Justice Department should use the nation’s antitrust laws not to punish Microsoft for its success but to ensure that products are accepted or rejected by consumers, not companies with a stranglehold on the personal computer market.