Court ruling hurts consumers

Daily Lobo column

Microsoft: The evil giant. The software conspiracy. The greedy monopoly.

Whatever.

The worst part about the Microsoft case is Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s original ruling that commands the company to split into two. Where once there was Microsoft, there will be an operating systems company and a software applications company. According to the judge, this would make the web browser market more open to competition.

The case started out with the Justice Department suing Microsoft for forcing computer manufacturers to load Microsoft Internet Explorer with every copy of Windows 95, thus stifling its competitor — Netscape Navigator. Although both Internet Explorer and Navigator can be downloaded for free off the Internet, having one come packaged with the operating system is monopolistic? Does it somehow make one more free than the other?

How could anyone even download Netscape onto a new computer if no Web browser came with the computer? You would be forced to go out and buy one or the other. That would certainly cause more competition among browser companies, but wouldn’t it also hurt consumers? About half of the people on the Internet use Netscape, even though it doesn’t come with Windows, and they can download it for free because Microsoft supplied them with a browser to do it. Forcing consumers to buy it wouldn’t necessarily change the number of people who used certain browsers, it would just force consumers to pay money for it instead. Both companies win, and the average consumer is that much poorer.

Besides the basic version of Internet Explorer, Windows also comes with installation files for Internet service providers such as America Online and CompuServe that are owned by companies other than Microsoft. Does this constitute uncompetitive behavior? If the breakups happen, the company that continues to make the standard operating system for personal computers will probably make a deal with the application’s software company to bundle Internet Explorer the same way. Once they are separate companies, wouldn’t the same practice be illegal?

Splitting up the company that way wouldn’t accomplish much. Unless Netscape manages to make a deal with a new operating systems company, Windows will continue to be shipped with a non-Netscape browser. Netscape will still be forced to convince people to download it from their Web site.

Microsoft’s only real monopoly is in the operating system. Currently, the vast majority of home computers run on the Windows operating system. Software companies that want to write and sell software have to write it to run under Windows or they have no way to compete. The only fair way to break up the company would be to create several operating systems manufacturers.

How would that affect the consumer? All the software companies would have to think about which operating system to write their code for. Inevitably, some of the operating systems will be better at certain things, so software will become specialized to each operating system.

Consumers will have to think carefully about which operating system to choose based on what they want to do with their computer. Within a few years, it will no longer be possible to buy a computer that “does it all.” If you want to play computer games, you will have to buy the game-friendly operating system. If you wanted to do music or graphics editing, you’d have to buy a different one, and so on.

The other possibility is, instead of specialization, one operating system would eventually win out over the others and create a new monopoly. All the developers would decide they liked a certain operating system the best and program for it. There is no way to force every software company to write programs for five different operating systems, or even to write it for an operating system they don’t like.

As ugly as Microsoft might seem, it is the way it is because of simple market forces. One operating system had to be chosen as the standard, and thanks to Bill Gates’ skillful maneuverings, it happened to be his.