And with that thought in mind....this is hot off the press from the Eastside Journal (King County WA).....
First time I've seen such an "opinionated opinion" in their editorials.....
KLP
eastsidejournal.com
Fight back on breakup plan for Microsoft
2000-04-30
So the shoe has finally dropped, the one now used by the government to kick a company that has benefited millions of people around the world.
The U.S. Justice Department and 19 states want a federal judge to break Microsoft into two companies. It's a radical decision that makes no sense.
The government's flexing of its legal muscle is designed not so much to seek a reasonable intervention but to show upstart Microsoft just who is boss in the American economy. The action shows just how much the Clinton administration is out of touch with the American public.
As the penalty for Microsoft's huge success in the fast-paced world of high technology, the Justice Department wants to break the company into two parts -- one firm producing the Windows operating system and another producing software business applications. Some, including even business professors, think this is a great idea that should bring about marvelous results -- even for the two new Microsofts.
Sorry, but these educators really don't know for sure, and neither does the government.
There are two basic reasons for having a free enterprise economic system. One is that liberty is an end itself, and should be prized. The other is that the marketplace, over time, rewards industriousness, intelligence, efficiency and innovation, producing more than any centralized planning. That which benefits the consumer, and is what the consumer wants, should be the guide.
If Microsoft had really thwarted the desire of the marketplace by illegally stifling its competitors, as U.S. Judge Thomas Jackson has ruled, you might be able to justify a drastic action, but the way some of those competitors are thriving shows this isn't the case.
Sure, Microsoft was aggressive. It sought every advantage it could find. In a dynamic, instantly changing industry, it secured some footholds that enabled it to climb to the heights at least for a while, but it did not cheat consumers and it did not come close to disabling those competitors seeking the same business heights themselves.
Now, the government hopes to do to Microsoft worse than Microsoft did to others. Fortunately, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled in favor of Microsoft in related cases.
The government also wants Microsoft to come up with a breakup plan within four months and to put it into effect one year after all appeals end in the case. That's ridiculous. It took two years back in the '80s to break up AT&T into eight companies. That one was easier since it mostly involved hardware and the creation of new companies by geography.
The government also wants the court to force Microsoft to change its business practices even before the company appeals the breakup proposal. Since there's no guarantee an appeals court will agree with the Justice Department or Jackson, why should Microsoft be forced to change now?
The feds also want to force Microsoft to disclose all software code needed to write applications that run on Windows and free computer makers from Microsoft's restrictions on how they configure the desktop. As we said above, let's wait and see if Microsoft actually is guilty before such a sentence is imposed.
Microsoft is fighting back. It is urging its supporters to send e-mails to elected officials voicing opposition to the breakup. We second that suggestion. E-mail contacts are:
Sen. Slade Gorton: www.senate.gov/~gorton/
Sen. Patty Murray: senator_murray@murray.senate.gov
Rep. Jay Inslee (1st District): jay.inslee@mail.house.gov
Rep. Jennifer Dunn (8th District): dunnwa08@mail.house.gov
For whatever its reasons, the Clinton administration is out to ruin Microsoft. It's time for the consumer to fight back.
|
