|
|
Frequently Asked
Questions
Q:
Isn't Microsoft using force?
You say you are in favor of
the free market. But isn't Microsoft interfering with free competition? Isn't it
forcing its products on consumers? Isn't the Justice Department trying to restore
a free market?
A: As a private corporation,
Microsoft has no power to force anyone. The entire case against Microsoft (and, indeed,
the entire case for the antitrust laws) is based on an equivocation between economic
power and political power. The difference between these two forms of power must be
kept strictly in mind--for it is a difference with life-and-death consequences.
In "The Dollar and the Gun" (The Objectivist Forum, June 1983),
philosopher Harry Binswanger defines the difference between these two forms of power:
"'Political power' refers to the power of the government. The special nature
of that power is what differentiates government from all other social institutions.
That which makes government government, its essential attribute, is its monopoly
on the use of physical force. Only a government can make *laws*--i.e., rules of social
conduct backed up by physical force. ...The penalty for breaking the law is fines,
imprisonment, and ultimately, death. The symbol of political power is a gun.
"Economic power, on the other hand, is the ability to produce material values
and offer them for sale. E.g., the power of Big Oil is the power to discover, drill,
and bring to market a large amount of oil. Economic power lies in assets--i.e., the
factors of production, the inventory, and the cash possessed by businesses. The symbol
of economic power is the dollar.
"A business can only make you an offer, thereby expanding the possibilities
open to you. The alternative a business present you with in a free market is: 'increase
your well-being by trading with us, or go your own way.' The alternative a government,
or any force-user, presents you with is: 'do as we order, or forfeit your liberty,
property, or life.'"
All Microsoft has to induce customers to give it money is the value of its products.
If Microsoft started to produce an inferior product, if it chose not to update Windows
to incorporate new features, it would eventually lose the market; equipment manufacturers
and consumers would seek out a better operating system. All that the government (and
those of Microsoft's competitors who are calling for government interference) have
to offer is a threat: "We'll dictate what can go into the Windows operating
system--and you'd better toe the line or we'll throw you in jail."
In the case of Web browsers--the specific issue in the current court case--the equivocation
between the dollar and the gun becomes utterly absurd. Microsoft is seeking to gain
predominance in the Web browser market by giving its product away for free.
To talk of giving a product away for free as an act of force is a frightening instance
of Orwellian "doublespeak."
The consequence of this "doublespeak" is truly disastrous: In answer to
the pseudo-force of showering consumers with free products, the antitrust case against
Microsoft threatens to introduce the genuine coercion involved in government regulation
of operating systems. Robert W. Tracinski
(3 Jan 98)
Q:
How can a big business be a minority?
How can you refer to a company
as big and powerful as Microsoft as being "persecuted"?
A: Look at the facts
of this case. Who is arrayed against Microsoft? A coalition of anti-business leftists
and self-appointed "consumer advocates" under the lead of Ralph Nader;
a cabal of jealous competitors who have hired high-powered lawyers and lobbyists
to promote a government attack on Microsoft; there is the Attorney General and the
Justice Department, with virtually unlimited resources at their command; there is
the Congress, where both Democrats and Republicans support the attacks on Microsoft;
there is a federal judge who is ignorant of the technical issue in this case and
who does not regard the issue of individual rights as relevant to the antitrust laws;
finally, there is the press, which alternates between portraying Microsoft as a malevolent
Big Brother and portraying the case as too complicated or technical for the layman
to take sides.
Who is on the side of Microsoft? There is Microsoft itself...and us. Furthermore,
Microsoft's efforts are widely dismissed on the grounds that it is merely protecting
its own interests. In the code of modern American politics, it is the victim of government
intervention who is considered to have the least right to speak in his own case.
Who, then, will speak up for the rights of businessmen? Today, even the lowest specimen
of humanity--especially the lowest specimen of humanity--can count on support
from numerous sources. A homeless drug addict has a dozen different organizations,
agencies, shelters, rehab programs, etc., devoted to his aid. A Nazi who burns a
cross on his front lawn knows he can call the ACLU to protect his rights. But what
if a peaceful, responsible, productive businessman--even a hero of American business--finds
himself under attack? Who can he call?
That is our purpose. In her essay "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business,"
Ayn Rand called for a "civil liberties
union for businessmen." That is the function we are performing in this case.
Robert W. Tracinski (10 Jan 98)
Q:
Don't consumers have a right to Windows without Explorer?
Does not Microsoft's bundling of
their products (i.e. Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Windows) into one
package disrupt a person's right to only have to pay for products he wishes to buy?
A: No one has a right to buy
whatever they wish, one only has the right to buy what others choose to sell to them.
The terms of any trade must be agreeable to the buyer and the seller, or a
sale does not take place. If you don't like Microsoft's terms, then you are free
to go somewhere else (like I did when I bought an Apple Macintosh and a UNIX server).
There is no right to force Microsoft to create, or sell, a product called
"Windows without Explorer" if Microsoft does not want to. The key right
in this case is the right to property--which is a legitimate right. The property
rights to Windows and Explorer belongs solely to Microsoft and not to potential
buyers, and certainly not to the U.S. Department of Justice. That Microsoft does
not want to sell the product "Windows without Explorer" does not violate
your rights one iota. There is no such thing as your right to Microsoft's property.
There is only the right to buy products that others wish to sell to you. If they
don't wish to sell you them in the first place, then you have no right to buy them.
Mark Da Cunha (20 Jan 98)
© 1997,1998 Robert Tracinski and Mark Da Cunha. All rights reserved.
|
|
.