The Case Against Microsoft

DISCLAIMER: The site has no lawyers affiliated with it, and thus is in no position to comment on the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft from a LEGAL perspective, either in favor of or opposition to the company, although the case does give a good frame of reference. Statements in this site are meant to be used from the standpoint of urging customers to exercise their free market rights to not use Microsoft products if they are offended by the company's business practices. I believe that the company has the legal right to do at least some of the things mentioned in this page, but that such actions nonetheless display a disrespect for the end-user, who has the right to react in the marketplace.

Microsoft claims to defend "freedom to innovate". But it only appears to want to defend ITS right to innovate, and not anyone else's. And much of its "innovation" actually is the result of its acquiring the technologies developed by others. If you examine Internet Explorer, you'd find it is based upon technology developed by Mosaic. Front Page was the result of Microsoft buying out a small company. The file security features of Windows Millenium are a cut down version of Adaptec's technology. I could go on and on.

The specific action which led to the case was the integration of Internet Explorer with the Windows-98 operating system, which was, in the opinion of Netscape and its allies unfair to them. Prior to this, Microsoft began distributing its broswer for free in contrast to Netscape, which demanded a fee for its browser. In other words, their actions were believed to be an attempt to drive Netscape out of business. This action was not successful only because Netscape found alternate sources of revenue -- an advertising portal followed by the eventual merger with America Online.

In my opinion, the case probably could have been settled out of court, with a consent decree and perhaps a fine, as have many other cases against Microsoft. But the company chose to take on the government publicly, and thus aroused the government's wrath.

But Microsoft's anti-consumer practices are by no means limited to what it tried to do to Netscape. The ones I want to call particular attention to are:

  • The forced bundling of Windows with hardware by major computer manufacturers. But there is recourse for this (actually endorsed by Microsoft!) in the End-User License Agreement requiring (and allowing) you to return the unused product for a refund. Please see the following 2 websites for more information: zork.net or LinuxMall
  • The design of some of their software to REQUIRE the use of another Microsoft product for proper operation, even though competitive products exist.
  • The refusal to market its software for platforms other than Windows and Macintosh.
  • The refusal to disclose enough of the source code to enable others to develop products which interface properly with its own products.
  • The whole licensing concept, which is most anti-comptetitive in the server area, where the licensing covers not the number of servers, BUT THE NUMBER OF MACHINES ATTACHED TO THEM.

    • Nonetheless, I wish to emphasize that I believe that the best way to take action against Microsoft is by the exercise of one's rights in the marketplace