Microsoft Controls Access to Markets

Peter Golder and Gerard Tellis’ application of their market analysis to the Microsoft case is flawed (“Competition Is the Best Way to Regulate Microsoft,” Commentary, Dec. 26). They present examples of market leadership that are not relevant to the markets that Microsoft dominates.

The applications markets that Microsoft has taken over (word processing, spreadsheets, browsers, etc.) are linked to the operating systems market where Microsoft is essentially the only supplier. The professors ignore this interdependence. Microsoft has used this interdependence and its exclusive market access to shift consumers away from better applications. Good enough is the enemy of better. Golder and Tellis’ examples of change in market leadership depend upon access to the marketplace. Microsoft, like other companies, attempts to control access in order to succeed.

Golder and Tellis state that Microsoft’s market leadership is the result of relentless innovation. Relentless predation of competitors’ innovations is a more accurate characterization of Microsoft’s behavior. Free market ideologues like Golder and Tellis refuse to recognize the damage that monopolists can inflict on an industry and consumers. Attorneys general of nine states have seen what Golder and Teller have not.

Gene Waller

Goleta

*

The authors’ chanting of Microsoft’s mantra regarding innovation shows a complete disregard for the realities of operating-system functions. Microsoft stifles others’ innovations that, in their not-so-humble opinion, may prove to be superior to a Microsoft product using Windows.

Should Saddam Hussein be looked up to because his innovations keep him in power? Does the competition, if any, have a chance of unseating him? I think not. Nor does anyone have a chance of unseating Microsoft under the rules promulgated by the Justice Department. That ruling merely sustains Microsoft’s protected status quo.

Lenard E. McDonald

Culver City