• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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]

Comments

Post a comment