We asked your opinion about the
Microsoft antitrust suit. Within an hour of the
broadcast, 60 people emailed us their opinions. Of
the 120+ letters we received over the weekend
almost 10 to 1 were against Microsoft, arguing that
its trade practices are extremely monopolistic.
There were several people, however, who argued in
favor of the software giant. Thanks to everyone who
took the time to make their thoughts known!
Here are excerpts from three
randomly selected messages that were pro
Microsoft.
Kevin Schuler
Let's look at the facts. While it's true that
Microsoft has an 85% share of the Personal Computer
Operating System market, it only has a 4% share of
the software market overall. It is interesting to
compare Microsoft's market share in the context of
a city newspaper. For example, many city newspapers
have a dominate share of the newspaper market in
their metropolitan area, but a small share of the
United States newspaper market overall. We allow
these monopolies to continue because of economies
of scale and our trust in the ethics and
objectivity of the journalism profession. Today,
many newspapers have joined media
conglomerates--which are much more powerful than
Microsoft--but we allow these powerhouses to
continue in the interest of economy. These
conglomerates are much more influential to most
Americans than Microsoft. So why does the DOJ pick
on Microsoft?
I have worked in the software industry for 10
years. And, while I've never worked for Microsoft,
I have done business with, or competed with, the
corporation throughout that period. The Microsoft
portrayed by the DOJ and Ralph Nader's quasi
consumer group is not the Microsoft I know. I
wholeheartedly believe that Microsoft is innocent
of any antitrust violation.
Ronald H. Miller
Microsoft is not violating antitrust. The issue
is what works for thesoftware not who builds it..
Microsoft has been smart enough to include and to
integrate the web browser. however, I would admit
that netscape works better! Why? I don't know, but
it works well with my microsoft operating system.
When I purchase my software I want everything
engineered and workable. It is very unfair to
penalize microsoft for doing good business. Windows
and the internet browser are included in the
system. The government should remain out of the
computer software business. yea! microsoft.
Hugh Faulkner
MS makes the OS. They can decide what goes in
the OS, including Internet Explorer (IE). MS does
not stop me from using any other browser on the
machine. In fact, I have two different versions of
Netscape's browser on this machine along with IE.
There is plenty of bad software out there which
is free. I, as a consumer, will happily pay for
whatever I need if it'll do the job. If IE wasn't
good, I would purchase Netscape's product. Fact is,
IE is better than Netscape's and that's why the
latter is losing market share.
The only thing MS is saying to manufacturers is
that IE, as part of what they include in the OS,
must be included. As a customer buying a Compaq
computer, I can EASILY delete the IE icon and
install Netscape if I want to.
When Netscape made a better browser, there was
no argument. Today, Microsoft makes the better
product and their competition have resorted to the
government and the courts rather than working
harder to develop a better mousetrap.
And excerpts from three randomly
selected letters AGAINST Microsoft's
position:
Elston Wyatt
Yes, YES, YES! If Microsoft has their way there
will be no other software company in America (or
the world.) They have leveraged their control over
the PC operating system, first to capture the major
applications business by building undocumented
hooks into the OS code that only they could
utilyze, secondly by expanding the concept of the
OS to include applications (i.e. Internet Explorer)
for free that are the primary products of their
competitors, thirdly by attempting to control the
use of potential content that is rightly the
heritage of all of us (i.e. photo and art
libraries, fourthly by buying into the internet
infrastructure.... I believe Microsoft should be
broken up into pieces which can compete with all
other comers on a level playing field...
The contempt Microsoft exhibits is not only to
the court, but to the whole industry and to all
their customers. Microsoft could not have been as
successful as they have had they not built their
business on the sweat of all the companies they
bought up in the past. ... I am rooting for the
Justice Dept. in this case, and looking for a few
Davids to put up a good fight against MS Goliath.
Let MS build a really good OS; NT may someday be as
capable as Unix and easier to use. But they really
should let the rest of the industry build the
applications, the content, and the infrastructure
so we can have jobs also.
J.M. Venable
Yes, I believe Microsoft is guilty as charged--
clearly operating as a bully on the the cyber
playing field. Their corporate strategy of buying
out any company that appears to have a better idea
or another unique way of packaging and providing
information on the web is restraining trade because
it is an obvious way of eliminating competition.
.... I would like to know why they have been able
to attain such a monopoly status this far. When
some of us run into big problems trying to run
Netscape on top of Windows 95 it makes you wonder
if it's a bug or the result of intentionality--
because heck, we're only human, right? A little bit
of corporate goodwill would go a long way in
settling this antitrust mess that's affecting the
net but that fundamental principle does not seem to
be in Microsoft's armament. As soon as there's
another good OS on the scene you know there's a
number of us who will bolt-- greed and ruthless
competition are the antithesis of what the world
wide web represents-- to me anyway and I don't
think I am the only one. We should be trying to
make a better world through universal access to
information, not controlling everything for resale
on cable t.v.
Gary Gronau
It is ludicrous to claim that a browser or other
communications software NEEDS to be part of the
operating system that runs the computer and
peripherals. If Microsoft has in fact inextricably
integrated the two, as it claims, the the result is
unnecessarily, and probably intentionally,
anti-competitive. In effect Microsoft is holding
itself and its customers hostage until its
monopolistic demands are met.
Microsoft clearly seeks overwhelming market
control without a care for how that affects the
development of technology which would benefit
everyone. This has been clear since it abandoned
the collaboration with IBM in the development of
the OS/2 operating system, preferring to promote
the far inferior Windows system at the time, an act
which set personal computer technology back,
probably by several years.
