Microsoft deserves anti-trust investigation

Monday, February 1, 1999

Microsoft deserves anti-trust investigation

ANTI-TRUST: Government seeks to give Netscape opportunity to
compete

By Wayne Lu

This letter is written in response to Matthew Gever’s column
"Government agents should open windows for Microsoft" (Viewpoint,
Jan. 28).

Since Gever asked so many questions in his article, I will
attempt to answer a few of them.

"The government actually wants Microsoft to promote the products
of its competitors. How is that fair? Will Coke now have to include
a can of Pepsi in every six-pack?"

The government never wanted Microsoft to promote Netscape. It
only wants Microsoft to give Netscape a fighting chance.
Microsoft’s practice would be akin to Coke giving consumers a free
Snapple every time you buy a Coke.

"Is that an unfair practice to give something away for free? In
addition, Microsoft never disallowed the use of other Web browsers
on its operating system. Netscape can still freely be used on
Windows. That sounds pretty fair to me."

The difference is that Netscape is trying to create a new market
and a consumer base for its products. Microsoft already had a large
consumer base.

By giving away IE for free, Microsoft did not have to create a
market at all. At the same time, Microsoft basically cut off the
consumer pool originally available for Netscape.

The question of how well Netscape works inside a Microsoft
environment is still being debated among software users and
developers.

"And there is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. It is
perfectly just when a firm attains a paramount market position
through creativity and accomplishment."

This wasn’t really a question, but I just want to reply to this.
First, Gever should really go review his economics classes. Second,
the government actually agrees with this statement. That is why the
Department of Justice never tried to break up Microsoft in the
operating-system market.

But when Microsoft tries to muscle out Netscape in a different
market by using its status as a monopoly, I think that’s the same
as the mafia trying to muscle in on smaller start-up companies.

"Government agencies do not have to earn the money they
spend."

Governments earn their money by providing for a defense system
to protect the people; by providing services like paving the
streets and building freeways; by providing for public education
like UCLA, etc.

"When has Bill Gates ever shoved a gun in your face and said you
have to buy Windows 98?"

He may not have done it to the consumers, but he certainly did
it to the computer manufacturers. Even accounting for Apple
computers, Windows OS exists on 80 to 90 percent of computers in
use. If you asked to buy a computer without a Windows OS
pre-installed, you will find the attempt a very frustrating and
futile act. The current movement to receive refunds for unused
Microsoft products is an attempt to fight the "Microsoft tax" on
consumers (http://www.thenoodle.com/refund).

"The cable modem already exists, so why is it not on the market?
… Why is the government not investigating this, if they are so
concerned with the good of the consumer?"

As I understand it, the cable modem is slowly being released in
certain areas for testing. TCI has cable-modem service available in
the Bay Area, but not in Los Angeles. Cable modems only carry TV
signals and Internet signals.

You will not be able to hook up a telephone and make a regular
call from the cable-modem line, so telephone companies are not that
worried about it.

The only connection that I know of between telephone companies
and cable modems is the merger between AT&T and TCI cable, and
other such mergers.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]