Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:47:27 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> 
> "Steven D'Aprano" <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.10.22.03.58.40.332401 at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au...
> 
>> That's basic economics. Something which can be allowed or ignored or even
>> encouraged when done by small businesses in a competitive market can
>> easily become harmful and bad for the economy when done by a monopolist or
>> duopolist in an uncompetitive market.
> 
>     Microsoft goal is and should be their own success, not the success of 
> the economy or the market in general.

Neither I, nor you, nor the government of any nation, should care a
monkey's toss specifically for Microsoft's success. Microsoft is one
special interest, out of a potentially unbounded number of possible
players in the economy of a country and the world.

Unless you or I are specifically shareholders in Microsoft, we should not
care about their specific success; and the government should be entirely
agnostic about who are the winners and losers in an economy. The
government's role should be to ensure a level playing field, and minimum
levels of health, safety and environmental standards. There is no place
for government giving special-interests like Microsoft favours.

Society regulates where and how we park our cars: for instance, none of us
are allowed to park our car in the middle of busy road. and if we try, our
car is likely to be impounded. This is not because there is anything in
and of itself *wrong* with parking at such-and-such a place, but because
of the effect it has on others. A sensible government cares for smooth
flowing traffic on the roads, with the minimum of delays and the maximum
flow practical. Perhaps Walmart or Safeway might find it convenient to
park their trucks on public roads for any number of reasons. Too bad for
them: the benefit to them does not outweigh the loss to everyone else,
even if they don't specifically block access to their competitors.

Microsoft's behaviour over-all has been just as anti-social,
anti-competitive and harmful to the over-all running of the economy as a
hypothetical Walmart or Safeway that regularly parked their trucks in the
middle of the main road for a few hours while they unloaded.

Maybe, just maybe, if Mom & Pop's Corner Store tried it once or twice, we
could afford to turn a blind eye, especially if the disruption caused by
towing their delivery van was greater than the disruption caused by their
double-parking. Thousands of people break the law by double-parking for a
few minutes, and society doesn't collapse. But something that we can
afford to ignore when done by M&P's Corner Store becomes a serious problem
if done by somebody with the economic power of Walmart, with their
thousands of deliveries by 18-wheelers every day across the country.


> Microsoft's status of a "monopolist" 
> is only meaningful if you define the market as "desktop operating systems 
> for 32-bit x86 computers". 

That is *precisely* the market we're talking about. Not "any item that
runs off electricity", not "orange juice", not "pork bellies", not "all
computing devices", but desktop PCs. What did you think the Justice
Department's investigation was about? Motor vehicles?


> There is no way Microsoft could have expected the 
> market to be defined in this way and no way to argue that Microsoft had any 
> reason to believe their conduct was illegal.

Microsoft have lawyers. Microsoft destroyed emails and at least one senior
manager perjured himself in court. Microsoft created a fake video
demonstration which they then gave as evidence. Do you really believe that
Microsoft's executives are so incompetent that they don't get legal advice
before writing up contracts? Or that nobody in authority at Microsoft
realised that destroying evidence and lying to a judge are crimes?

In any case, even if you are right that Microsoft had no ideas... so what?
Ignorance of the law never has been an excuse for criminal behaviour. It
has always been every individual's responsibility to make sure that they
do not act illegally, and that goes for companies as well. 



-- 
Steven.