Misunderstanding Microsoft

To the editors:

I wonder whether the writer of "In Defense of the Microsoft Monopoly" can see how his arguments apply to the Microsoft situation (Opinion, Nov. 17). First, his claim that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act targets monopolies which rely on market power rather than market merit is amusing. I would like to ask: Does Microsoft truly possess a monopoly because its products are far and away the top in their field, or is it instead because of the chance licensing of the DOS operating system by IBM for the PC, which led to a massive install base for Windows and all its descendants? The writer continually uses Microsoft's favorite word, "innovation," without realizing that Microsoft's gifts lie not in original thinking or research and development but instead assimilation and adaptation of technologies to the Windows medium, to the exclusion of all others.

The writer makes reference to what he believes to be threats to Microsoft's power, including the Java programming language. In fact, Microsoft has worked against the Java initiative by producing their own "version" of Java which, while not fully compliant with the Sun standards, is needed to take full advantage of the Windows functions 85 percent of the world's PC users are targeted for. In addition, the condescending treatment of Microsoft's competitors, often beaten not through superior product but by exclusionary licensing techniques, reveals a lack of knowledge of how the workings of the computer industry functions. The writer assumes that companies survive entirely on the merits of their products, swallowing the Microsoft line completely, while not realizing that it is the tactics Microsoft practices which make it a monopoly, not the vertical integration of their software division.

In a world with single alternatives, choice dies, and choice is the only weapon the consumer has. Once that is gone, we are simply spoon-fed whatever Microsoft chooses to give us. This state already exists to some extent; why else would we accept an operating system that crashes every 10 minutes?

What other industry would we accept such atrocious quality standards from? The American consumer has become complacent with the state of things today, and it is to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's credit that he has been able to summon the courage to fight against Microsoft. Let us hope that the rest of the government's case will be as successful.