Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Choosing sides in Justice Department vs. Bill Gates

Friday, June 5, 1998 | 10:28 a.m.

"THE GOOSE WITH THE GOLDEN EGG is Being Led to Slaughter."

"Microsofties Say They're Right as Rain."

"High-Tech Hypocrisy About Government."

"Antitrust Excess?"

"Politics Play a Role in States' Status in Microsoft Suit."

"Microsoft Thugs Aimed to Crush Competition."

"Bill Gates is Wrong."

"We're Defending Our Right to Innovate."

These are but a few of the headlines over articles I've read in past weeks. During this period of time, my mind has been changed several times. However, a few aspects of the case have remained static.

Gates adds, "And they would deny consumers the ability to buy innovative software that allows them, say, to download data from the Internet while they are using Microsoft Word or Intuit's Quicken. Some of our competitors don't think consumers should be allowed to benefit from such innovations. They don't want to compete in the marketplace; they want to compete in court."

Lars-Erik Nelson, writing in the New York Daily News, refers to Microsoft as thugs. Nelson writes, "To squash Netscape, Microsoft programmed Microsoft Internet Explorer to be an integral part of Windows 98, claiming that it could not be removed without hurting the basic Windows operating system.

"Thus, if new customers took the simplest course and used the already-installed Internet Explorer rather than replacing it with Netscape, Microsoft would soon control the entire world's gateway to the Internet."

Nelson concludes, "Microsoft's Bill Gates complains that his company is being victimized for being a successful innovator. Nope, his company is being targeted for trying to use its monopoly power to prevent other people from being successful innovators."

After almost 20 hours of reading, I've come to accept the warning given in the New York Times by Professor Robert E. Hall of Stanford: "Microsoft does not now control anyone's choice of software, apart from the operating system. Computer manufacturers are free to make deals with independent software producers and put their programs on new computers. And consumers can choose from thousands of different programs, all without interference from Microsoft. Wordperfect, for example, still competes effectively against Microsoft Word.

"Because of its dominance of important markets, Microsoft invites greater scrutiny than other companies do. But the purpose of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not to help rivals. If the Justice Department isn't careful, its case against Microsoft runs the risk of coming to the aid of Netscape -- and not of the consumer."

James V. DeLong, a conservative scholar and writer, finally gives Gates a pat on the back and tells him to give 'em hell. DeLong, writing in the L.A. Times, says, "So go to it, Gates. However unwillingly, you have been drafted as the champion of those of us who do not want our technology or our lives micromanaged by a committee composed of antitrust division bureaucrats, Al Gore, 20 state attorneys general drooling for governorships, the vultures of the plaintiffs' bar and all those business people who would rather buy the government with campaign contributions than get out and compete. The odds aren't with you -- or with us. But it's a great cause."

Business Week magazine believes there is still time for the government and Gates to reach some compromises to avoid a lengthy and costly lawsuit. The magazine declares that "the company is not guilt-free" and the "government is not the devil."

Unless some reasonable compromise is reached, I have to join DeLong in cheering for the underdog, Bill Gates.