Microsoft, a 40 year old company started by Bill Gates in the 1960's and has flourished since then to become one of the biggest companies in the whole world has just recently been ordered by the Justice Department to divided its company into two parts. "An operating-systems company would own the Windows operating system and related assets, while an application company would own the Internet Explorer, excel, Word, and other Microsoft applications." (2) "the conduct remedies Microsoft to treat Major computer makers the same and permit them to customize the way in which Microsoft’s Windows operating system appears on their screens. Microsoft also would have to permit other software-application developers the same access to the company’s code that Microsoft’s own developers enjoy" (10)

Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division started this antitrust case against Microsoft when "many legal experts predicted he could never win"(9) two years ago has just won his case and "branded Microsoft a predatory, illegal monopolist" (9) The problem is that they do not realize the percussions from this court decision on the software industry. "Microsoft is in a competitive market. It does not need to be broken into two parts and then regulated for years."(8) This case would not have gotten as far as it did if not for the success of "the 1984 breakup of American Telephone and Telegraph" (7) and the IBM antitrust case 20 years ago. Many people had doubts that the break up of the telephone industrial would be the right move to do but the verdict turned out to be helpful to both the economy and consumers. (7) The same thing happened to the IBM case except that the case went so slowly that during the trial, Apple Computer Inc. and other pc companies had already taken over its domination over the computer world.

The software industry is a very complicated business and these "lawers-turned-software-engineers at Janet Reno’s Justice Department."(6) maybe causing a major mistake. There are tons of different aspects to the software industry and it is confusing to see that a "government that has recognized it is completely incapable of regulating trucking, airlines, telecommunications, railroads and electricity." (6) would believe that it could some how control this area of expertise when even people who have been studying this field all their lives do not completely understand the whole industry.

The decision made by the Justice department could have a worldwide effect on the economy and possibly ruin America’s leadership of the global computer-communications industry. This is not a industry where there is a simple right or wrong answer and Microsoft should not be forced to follow such harsh restrictions while other companies around the world continue to have a firmer grasp on the software division. The government tried to simplify the situation by looking at it as a big evil company trying to put all the other small companies out of business. But the government does not truly understand the politics behind the software world. Their belief is that "if Microsoft is broken up and then both parts are required to play the economic game with regulatory handicaps, another American company will emerge as the winner in the computer software." (8) But this is not just a American market, companies around the world are trying to take the monopoly that Microsoft has work so hard to get and to constantly working to improve their products so that they keep ahead in the world. Antitrust laws exists in most parts of the world but the laws are viewed in a different way in other countries. Their first priority is control of the global economy before they start worrying about antitrust laws. In any other country in the world, "Microsoft would have been protected as a crown jewel—not attacked by the government’s antitrust division." (8) America has already given up one of its monopoly to the foreign market, should it give up another? In 1968 the United shoe machinery corp. was convicted of monopoly so it was forced to divided itself. While the government was forcing it to downsize, great amounts of imports were being shipped to America which ruined the United shoe machinery corp. business. " The government never looked up to notice that the American shoe industry was dying, even as it was pouncing on the victim." (8)

The decision to break up Microsoft might not be helping the independent companies that The government claims Microsoft is trying to put out of business, but in fact may be the cause of their destruction. "Many of us know the Justice department’s case against Microsoft was instigated largely by industry rivals at Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Apple Computer who wanted the government to do what the market would not: give them a leg up on Microsoft."(6) But these companies might soon be regretting what they asked for. It is impossible to stop a company from producing the product that they are responsible for. But with this new decision then the new applications that Microsoft is developing for windows can not just simply be added to the next version of windows, but then must be sold separately which would in the end either make more money for Microsoft or drive a few smaller companies out of business because originally those Microsoft products were free when you buy windows but if the company is broken up then the consumers would now need to make a conscious choice in whether to buy a product from such a reliable company as Microsoft or buy from a little unknown new company. Before they could afford to buy both since a lot of the applications from Microsoft was included in windows but now with the break up, people will have to decide what they should spend their money on.

If the court of appeals does not override Judge Jackson’s decision to break up Microsoft then the other companies better watch out because that could mean an end to their business. After the announcement of the case against Microsoft, its stocks dropped quickly and many new software companies are switching over to Linux instead of continuing using windows. Linux is not a market that Microsoft has focused on but with this decision by the Justice department, " They could port every Microsoft application over to Linux in no time." (6) Normally Microsoft focused on improving on its own operating system but if it spilt apart then the application part of Microsoft would start going for the Linux market. Since so many companies are switching over to Linux, they either have to pay to retrain their employees in this new operating system or wait until Microsoft produced applications for Linux. It is a lot cheaper to buy the application programs that Microsoft would make for the Linux operating system, since their employees are already familiar with Microsoft programs, they would not need to be retrained. So infact even with the split up, Microsoft would eventually gain back its "monopoly" eventually.

Microsoft does have as much of a monopoly as one would think after hearing about the stories about how rich Bill Gates is or that "windows computer operating systems runs on nine out of ten personal computers."(7) But the truth of the matter is that "if Microsoft fails to adapt to the net much faster and more successfully than it has done up to now, it will be overtaken by other companies." (1) "Linux has captured 25 percent of the highly profitable network server market."(6) The problem is that the government has given such a broad term of the software industry that it’s easy to claim that Microsoft is a monopoly. It would be like saying that the Japanese steel company has a monopoly because 18 out of every 20 homes has some steel from that company. In reality Microsoft has a lot of competition and in some cases it is the only competition for other companies that are about to become monopolies in certain areas of the technological world. "In data bases, for instance, Oracle is by far the dominant supplier. Microsoft’s cheaper and increasingly powerful alternative products have pushed prices down and prompted Oracle to innovate more rapidly." " the role of Microsoft’s lower-priced operating systems in the high-performance server market, where Sun Microsystems rules, or the role of Microsoft’s Pocket PC software in keeping Palm on its toes."(5)" Is it right to trade one monopoly for several others?

I believe that Microsoft should not be split apart and that the decisions of Judge Jackson should be repealed by the state court of appeals. It is unfair that Microsoft is being called a monopoly just because it is involved in so many different fields of technology. It would be like calling Philip Morris owning a monopoly because he is involved in so many fields of the economy. This break up will cause a halt in our economy and may cause a lot of people their jobs. Also Microsoft has never taken advantage of its "monopoly". "The government’s economist admitted that Microsoft’s practices had not hurt the consumer."(8)Economist Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern University, an expert on productivity, the computer industry’s rate of production annually almost 20% between 1961 and 1999. Prices of computers, adjusted for these improvements, fell at about the same annual rate. (2) If the technological industry is doing so well then why not leave it alone and let it develop on its own? Besides, " it is the process of competition—driving other companies out of business—that makes capitalism efficient and innovative. If this case sets the precedent that driving other companies out of business is a violation of antitrust laws, it will undercut the very nature of the capitalistic system." (8) In my opinion the decisions of the court will be over ruled eventually by a higher court or if George Bush gets elected for president he will make a agreement with Microsoft to settle the case since he has already shown signs that he is against the case in the first place.

This ruling was trying to protect the people from unfair prices caused by Microsoft and help the new computer companies get a better chance in surviving but in the end it might hurt them more than help them. If the ruling comes into effect, Microsoft will still have a monopoly over the common soft wares used in windows and might even start invading other operating systems like mac or linux. Computer prices would also go up because now when you buy a computer you will also have to go out and buy all the different soft wares for your computer instead of having them included in your operating system to begin with. The ruling was made under the intentions to keep democracy in America so that everyone can have a chance to decide what they want on their computers and so that anyone can start a computer company without fear of being squeezed out by bigger companies, but there are a lot of consequences to this ruling. Schools would have less computers because of higher software prices and middle/lower class children would have less computer resources and knowledge.

<-- Back to Santa Monica Students

<-- Back to LA Students