“With a Name Like Smuckers What Microsoft Learned (and the
Department of Justice Didn’t) From the Grocery Business”
“More than three months into the federal anti-trust trial of
Microsoft Corporation, there has emerged a pretty clear image of
the world’s largest software company as a paranoid and mean-fisted
outfit that sees its job as more one of killing competitors than
serving customers. But is this anti-trust? Are consumers hurt or
helped by Microsoft’s business practices? This is the dilemma faced
by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Sure, Microsoft wanted to kill
Netscape and to corrupt Sun Microsystems’ Java language, but does
either act hurt consumers? These actions, in themselves, probably
don’t hurt consumers. But that doesn’t mean Microsoft is innocent
— just that the Department of Justice has followed the wrong
strategy.”
“The question here is not whether Microsoft crushes competitors
but whether Microsoft hurts consumers. Crushing competitors is part
of business and not illegal. Netscape doesn’t have some intrinsic
right to exist in a world otherwise controlled by Microsoft. Where
Microsoft would get in trouble is if consumers were being forced to
pay higher prices than they ought to specifically because of
monopolistic Microsoft business practices. The Department of
Justice’s mistake has been to concentrate on the woes of
Microsoft’s competitors rather than those of Microsoft’s customers.
Forget about Netscape and Java. A trip to some local computer
stores is all it takes to realize that Microsoft is gouging
us.”