my response to the Microsoft vs. DOJ RFC
Below is the comment that I submitted in response to the call for comments by Consumers for Computing Choice.
Most Internet historians would agree that the reason for the proliferation of the Personal Computer, the Internet, and indeed, Microsoft’s ability to be hugely successful and experience enormous growth was the adoption of open, public, standards which could be adopted, implemented, and used as a base for development by computer venders and users alike.
If Microsoft is able to maintain it’s monopoly power, such open infrastructure will be seriously threatened and the ability for computer technology to continue it’s trend of rapid growth in terms of useability offered to the general public as well as monetary contributions to the economy could easily be squashed.
Because of Microsoft’s size, and the fact that they dominate the desktop software, operating system, server and enterprise software, and Internet services markets, Microsoft is uniquely positioned to establish ad-hoc standards for Internet and computing technology. This is already visable in Microsoft’s “.NET” and “Passport” initiatives. Though Microsoft argues that such initiatives are open and designed to foster contributions by third-party vendors, there is no reason to suspect that this will remain the case. Since Microsoft essentially controls the technology and the standards, they are in a position to block other vendors who may produce better performing or cheaper products designed for use on Microsoft platforms.
Therefore, Microsoft, rather than the market or consumer, is positioned to shape the future technological landscape. The company could, potentially, control both which technolgies are available to consumers, and how much consumers must pay for the technology. There are multiple implications for this scenario. Microsoft could control available technology, because, as stated earlier, Microsoft essentially controls a number of de-facto standards regarding computer technology. Therefore, if a computer hardware or software vendor creates some new piece of computer technology, it is essentially neccessary for this technology to be supported by Microsoft in order for the technolgy to reach the market. Therefore, this bottleneck not only means that consumers have less choice in the computer technology marketplace, but also that it is unprofitable to develop new computing technologies. Furthermore, since Microsoft software is so purvasive, Microsoft can set the prices for computer technology. Since Microsoft has already diminished competition through it’s monopolistic practices, many consumers are left with only two alternatives. Purchase Microsoft software or do without. The perfect example of the perils of this situation are in public schools. Since Microsoft has established itself as the industry leader in personal computer technology, it makes sense that students learn computer skills on the Microsoft platform. However, many schools find it difficult to afford the licensing costs of Microsoft software and are forced to either illegally pirate software or deprive students of quality technology education. Similarly, as bridging the digital divide has been stated as a national priority in many forums, a world where a single entity controls the price of computer software, and thus the key to computer ownership is clearly frightening.
In conclusion, the proposed DOJ settlement does nothing to alleviate the anti-competitive monopoly power of the Microsoft corporation. Because the company still maintains such a large share of numerous aspects of the computer technology market, entry into said market, and the ability for consumers to drive that market remain difficult. In the interest of protecting the rights of American consumers, and preserving the long tradition of entrepreneurship and technological advancement in the computer industry, I strongly urge the courts to reject the proposed settlement and instead take stronger action, such as the initially proposed break-up order, to protect free markets and the American consumer.