A Letter to Ralph Vader

.

. . .

. .

Letters To Senators from Concenrned American Citizens

We have received an outpouring of letters and e-mails defending Microsoft from the DOJ's antirtust suit. Below we present a brief sampling.

The persecution of Microsoft by the DOJ is a disgrace.

25 Feb 1998

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am a software developer with a San Diego software company; however, the following views are my own and do not necessarily represent the company's.

I believe that the persecution of Microsoft by the DOJ is a disgrace. All companies -- including Microsoft -- have a moral right to negotiate deals with customers, without competitors or the government having veto power over those deals. If they want to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows and Jim Barksdale objects, the proper reply is, "Mind your own business." The DOJ claims that its antitrust action is "pro-consumer," but it is Microsoft's competitors, not their customers, who are complaining.

Re: the issue of Microsoft's "monopoly": As far as I'm concerned, they don't have enough of a monopoly. As software developers, every additional operating system we need to support is a huge expense. We are in the process of moving our development efforts from multiple Unix platforms onto Windows. Knowing that we can target a single platform and hit over 80% of the market yields a great cost savings for us.

Our customers also have faced large overheads from the diverse operating systems they had to support. The dominance of Windows does not reflect a lack of competition in the software industry. Rather, it reflects the rational assessment of the marketplace that a single standard is much less costly for everyone than multiple, incompatible operating systems. In fact, the software industry (and computer industry as a whole) is brutally competitive; every single product sold today will be obsolete in three years. If a company doesn't make its own products obsolete by continuing to innovate, then some other company will. As IBM learned in the 80's, no one -- including Microsoft -- is immune from this fact.

Bill Gates is an American hero who we should thank for the fact that PCs are now accessible to virtually everyone in this country. One reason he has been able to achieve this is that the computer industry is arguably the freest, least-regulated industry in America. If Congress or the DOJ changes this, we will all be worse off.

Sincerely,

Dana Honeycutt

Microsoft owns Internet Explorer, not by government decree, but by right.

February 28, 1998

Dear Senator Hatch,

I am an avid supporter of Microsoft and the principle on which it stands--namely, the right to compete as it sees fit. Microsoft owns Internet Explorer, not by government decree, but by right.

I do no want to live in a society where 'envy' and 'spite' are the pillars on which our laws stand. Stop the persecution of Microsoft.

Lee Sandstead
Murfreesboro, TN

Another antitrust protection racket for disgruntled, inert, and envy-ridden competitors.

March 1, 1998

Dear Senator Durbin,

I work in a research lab at a major university medical center. For the better part of a decade now I've seen my data analysis chores become ever easier thanks to a succession of ever more powerful and capable personal computers "bundled" with ever more powerful and capable Microsoft products. I can now accomplish in an hour or two- - in my lab, at my convenience-- work that would have required access to a remote "main frame," the time of a secretary, and a trip to the "audio-visual" department back in the early 80s.

Year after year, our lab has bought Microsoft products, confident that they would be improved and supported. Through a succession of ever more powerful operating systems, Microsoft has expended tremendous effort never to disappoint that expectation (we still run programs written under DOS 2.0 in Windows 95). By creating this standard for software development, Microsoft has created enormous wealth; for itself; for the software developers who use its operating systems; and, in value for the dollar, for the consumer who buys its products.

The US Department of Justice now seeks to stop, by police force, Microsoft's tremendous effort to create and market ever better, more integrated products. In the perverse double speak of a criminal, DOJ attributes to its intended victim, Microsoft, its own crime: "restraining trade."

Senator, don't let the DOJ suffocate a roaring free market in computers and software with yet another antitrust protection racket for disgruntled, inert, and envy-ridden competitors.

Sincerely,

Gene Barth
Chicago, IL

It is not Microsoft who holds the power to exert force.

February 26, 1998

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing to you about the Department of Justice's campaign against Microsoft, which is of great concern to me. Microsoft has every moral right to its profits, which it has earned by offering value to its customers, not by forcing them to by its products. It is not Microsoft who holds the power to exert force--it is the Department of Justice, as we have repeatedly witnessed.

Attacking Bill Gates for his enormous tenacity and success in business is an insult to every hard-working American, from cinder- sweeper to industrialist. As Ayn Rand so eloquently showed, antitrust laws have nothing to do with upholding our constitutional rights and everything to do with the government using force to dictate the marketplace; they infringe upon the property rights of producers and consumers alike.

I urge you to help reign in the Department of Justice and put a halt to its irrational abuse of power in the pursuit of businessmen whose only "crime" is to excel in their line of work.

Sincerely,

Frode L. Odegard
Odegard Labs, Inc.
San Diego, CA
http://www.odegard.com

Just who's wearing the brass knuckles--Bill Gates or Janet Reno?

March 1, 1998

Dear Senator Kyl,

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene hearings on the antitrust charges leveled against Microsoft and its chairman, Bill Gates. These charges are an unjust persecution of a businessman whose only "crime" is running America's most successful company.

Ralph Nader and his pressure group, NetAction, have launched a propaganda campaign against Gates portraying him as a megalomaniac bent on world conquest. This smear is designed to blur the distinction between economic and political power.

Economic power is based on production, innovation, and reason. Microsoft holds its market share because it consistently delivers innovative products at low prices. Consumers are free to buy them or walk away.

Political power is based on the use of force--of which Nader and his ilk accuse Gates while simultaneously lobbying for government intervention in the software industry. There is a sharp difference between driving a hard bargain and holding a gun to a man's head. It is this difference that NetAction does not want you to see.

Microsoft is also accused of using "brass knuckles" techniques to force PC manufacturers to install Windows and Internet Explorer as a combined package. In fact, at least two of these companies, Compaq and Micron, have publicly contradicted this claim.

John Rose, a senior vice-president of Compaq told the Detroit News, "The feedback we've gotten from customers is that they like and want Internet Explorer with Windows 95."

Chairman and CEO Joe Daltoso of Micron didn't sound like a crime victim by saying in a press release, "Internet Explorer is our solution of choice." He also said, "We do not understand why some reports have characterized this declaration--which the Justice Department compelled us to provide--as a complaint against Microsoft."

In other words, the Justice Department used subpoena power to coerce statements from PC manufacturers and then told the public that these were criminal complaints. Just who's wearing the brass knuckles--Bill Gates or Janet Reno?

I urge you to uphold Microsoft's property rights and vote against government intervention into its affairs. That would not only be an act of justice, but would prevent the incremental destruction of the entire software industry by government bureaucracy and regulation--Nader's ultimate goal.

Sincerely,

Johannes M. Hacker Phoenix, AZ

What Naderites want is to have their Gates and eat him too!

March 3, 1998

Dear Senator Hatch,

I work as a programmer, but I do not work for Microsoft or its subsidiaries. At home I use an Apple Macintosh; the only Microsoft software I have on it is the free Internet Explorer browser. At work my colleagues and I work principally on Macintoshes. Please protect our freedom of choice--by standing up against the unjust persecution of Microsoft.

Please remind your fellow Committee members that words have specific meanings. It is not "unfair play" to outcompete other businesses by supplying advantages they can't. It is not "force" to offer in trade a value so large that it makes the alternatives look prohibitively expensive. That is still a voluntary agreement--you are not taking from anyone anything to which they have any rightful claim.

Please point out to the Committee that no one forcibly prevents anyone from choosing to use a Macintosh, or OS/2, or even UNIX (which can be obtained free of charge and isn't going anywhere). People can choose to use Netscape's browser, or Mosaic--which is also free and in the public domain. Too inconvenient? That inconvenience is the extent of the value Bill Gates is offering over the alternatives. By what arrogance do people take this value for granted and claim they have a right to it?

Please help the Committee grasp the egregious context-dropping behind the idea that antitrust laws protect "choice" and the "free market." It is not a "free market" when the government restricts the benefits Bill Gates is allowed to offer in order to force us to deal with his envious competitors. This is a violation of my freedom of choice even if I do not choose to purchase Microsoft products. Do you think I am happy that government force is being used so that Netscape, Sun, Apple, etc., can become more inefficient and less innovative?

People have no right to a "choice" of what to do with other people's property, and that includes Bill Gates' property. If they don't want to use Windows, or Explorer, that is their right. But then they should shut up and buy Macintoshes. What they have no right to do is to dictate the terms on which Bill Gates lets them have his product. "Bill Gates' product is too valuable--we resent depending on it so much, so we're just going to steal it--morality and justice be damned. He's rich so he can take it"--that is the shameful essence of the Naderite position.

What such people want is to have their Gates and eat him too--to be able to use Windows while ignoring the terms of its creator and spitting in his face.

Please tell the Committee that we ignore the terms of men such as Bill Gates at our peril, for they do what they do only on their own terms. If we wish to benefit from their creativity and industry, we must rigidly respect the one simple condition they request: freedom.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Blair
New York, NY

Please do not let Ralph Nader and Janet Reno turn our entire country into a bad neighborhood.

March 2, 1998

Dear Senator Hatch,

If I run a business and, finding myself out-classed by a more able competitor, run to the local Mafia don to have his legs broken, what kind of businessman am I? What effect do you think this would have on the local economy if a few other people did this, like the rest of my family and a few of my friends? How much trade do you think would go on now that we have eliminated that heartless, dog- eat-dog competition? Imagine a community dominated by gangs whose favor is required to run a business on their turf. You don't have to strain your imagination very hard. There are many such communities throughout our country. I would bet that, like myself, you avoid those places to the best of your ability. Please do not let Ralph Nader and Janet Reno turn our entire country into a bad neighborhood.

Very sincerely,

Cedar Bristol

Microsoft is being persecuted for being the good.

March 2, 1998

Dear Senator Feinstein,

The allegation that Microsoft constitutes a dangerous "concentration of power" is as ambiguous as the Antitrust laws which make it possible to bring such issues to court. What exactly is Microsoft accused of? Committing fraud? No. Sabotaging its rivals' production lines? No. Violating anyone's right not to buy Microsoft products? No. The plain truth is that Microsoft is being persecuted for being good--in fact, for being the best in the market.

In her article "Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason," novelist Ayn Rand identifies the nature of the principle that dictates court decisions in Antitrust cases as: "the penalizing of ability for being ability, the penalizing of success for being success, and the sacrifice of productive genius to the demands of envious mediocrity."

The antitrust crusade against Microsoft is a demonstration of that principle in practice.

Sincerely,

Ronen Nakash
West Hollywood, CA

.

home

. . .

Designed by Integrate Interactive

		.

.	.	.
.	.	Letters To Senators from Concenrned American Citizens We have received an outpouring of letters and e-mails defending Microsoft from the DOJ's antirtust suit. Below we present a brief sampling. The persecution of Microsoft by the DOJ is a disgrace. 25 Feb 1998 Dear Senator Feinstein, I am a software developer with a San Diego software company; however, the following views are my own and do not necessarily represent the company's. I believe that the persecution of Microsoft by the DOJ is a disgrace. All companies -- including Microsoft -- have a moral right to negotiate deals with customers, without competitors or the government having veto power over those deals. If they want to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows and Jim Barksdale objects, the proper reply is, "Mind your own business." The DOJ claims that its antitrust action is "pro-consumer," but it is Microsoft's competitors, not their customers, who are complaining. Re: the issue of Microsoft's "monopoly": As far as I'm concerned, they don't have enough of a monopoly. As software developers, every additional operating system we need to support is a huge expense. We are in the process of moving our development efforts from multiple Unix platforms onto Windows. Knowing that we can target a single platform and hit over 80% of the market yields a great cost savings for us. Our customers also have faced large overheads from the diverse operating systems they had to support. The dominance of Windows does not reflect a lack of competition in the software industry. Rather, it reflects the rational assessment of the marketplace that a single standard is much less costly for everyone than multiple, incompatible operating systems. In fact, the software industry (and computer industry as a whole) is brutally competitive; every single product sold today will be obsolete in three years. If a company doesn't make its own products obsolete by continuing to innovate, then some other company will. As IBM learned in the 80's, no one -- including Microsoft -- is immune from this fact. Bill Gates is an American hero who we should thank for the fact that PCs are now accessible to virtually everyone in this country. One reason he has been able to achieve this is that the computer industry is arguably the freest, least-regulated industry in America. If Congress or the DOJ changes this, we will all be worse off. Sincerely, Dana Honeycutt Microsoft owns Internet Explorer, not by government decree, but by right. February 28, 1998 Dear Senator Hatch, I am an avid supporter of Microsoft and the principle on which it stands--namely, the right to compete as it sees fit. Microsoft owns Internet Explorer, not by government decree, but by right. I do no want to live in a society where 'envy' and 'spite' are the pillars on which our laws stand. Stop the persecution of Microsoft. Lee Sandstead Murfreesboro, TN Another antitrust protection racket for disgruntled, inert, and envy-ridden competitors. March 1, 1998 Dear Senator Durbin, I work in a research lab at a major university medical center. For the better part of a decade now I've seen my data analysis chores become ever easier thanks to a succession of ever more powerful and capable personal computers "bundled" with ever more powerful and capable Microsoft products. I can now accomplish in an hour or two- - in my lab, at my convenience-- work that would have required access to a remote "main frame," the time of a secretary, and a trip to the "audio-visual" department back in the early 80s. Year after year, our lab has bought Microsoft products, confident that they would be improved and supported. Through a succession of ever more powerful operating systems, Microsoft has expended tremendous effort never to disappoint that expectation (we still run programs written under DOS 2.0 in Windows 95). By creating this standard for software development, Microsoft has created enormous wealth; for itself; for the software developers who use its operating systems; and, in value for the dollar, for the consumer who buys its products. The US Department of Justice now seeks to stop, by police force, Microsoft's tremendous effort to create and market ever better, more integrated products. In the perverse double speak of a criminal, DOJ attributes to its intended victim, Microsoft, its own crime: "restraining trade." Senator, don't let the DOJ suffocate a roaring free market in computers and software with yet another antitrust protection racket for disgruntled, inert, and envy-ridden competitors. Sincerely, Gene Barth Chicago, IL It is not Microsoft who holds the power to exert force. February 26, 1998 Dear Senator Feinstein, I am writing to you about the Department of Justice's campaign against Microsoft, which is of great concern to me. Microsoft has every moral right to its profits, which it has earned by offering value to its customers, not by forcing them to by its products. It is not Microsoft who holds the power to exert force--it is the Department of Justice, as we have repeatedly witnessed. Attacking Bill Gates for his enormous tenacity and success in business is an insult to every hard-working American, from cinder- sweeper to industrialist. As Ayn Rand so eloquently showed, antitrust laws have nothing to do with upholding our constitutional rights and everything to do with the government using force to dictate the marketplace; they infringe upon the property rights of producers and consumers alike. I urge you to help reign in the Department of Justice and put a halt to its irrational abuse of power in the pursuit of businessmen whose only "crime" is to excel in their line of work. Sincerely, Frode L. Odegard Odegard Labs, Inc. San Diego, CA http://www.odegard.com Just who's wearing the brass knuckles--Bill Gates or Janet Reno? March 1, 1998 Dear Senator Kyl, This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene hearings on the antitrust charges leveled against Microsoft and its chairman, Bill Gates. These charges are an unjust persecution of a businessman whose only "crime" is running America's most successful company. Ralph Nader and his pressure group, NetAction, have launched a propaganda campaign against Gates portraying him as a megalomaniac bent on world conquest. This smear is designed to blur the distinction between economic and political power. Economic power is based on production, innovation, and reason. Microsoft holds its market share because it consistently delivers innovative products at low prices. Consumers are free to buy them or walk away. Political power is based on the use of force--of which Nader and his ilk accuse Gates while simultaneously lobbying for government intervention in the software industry. There is a sharp difference between driving a hard bargain and holding a gun to a man's head. It is this difference that NetAction does not want you to see. Microsoft is also accused of using "brass knuckles" techniques to force PC manufacturers to install Windows and Internet Explorer as a combined package. In fact, at least two of these companies, Compaq and Micron, have publicly contradicted this claim. John Rose, a senior vice-president of Compaq told the Detroit News, "The feedback we've gotten from customers is that they like and want Internet Explorer with Windows 95." Chairman and CEO Joe Daltoso of Micron didn't sound like a crime victim by saying in a press release, "Internet Explorer is our solution of choice." He also said, "We do not understand why some reports have characterized this declaration--which the Justice Department compelled us to provide--as a complaint against Microsoft." In other words, the Justice Department used subpoena power to coerce statements from PC manufacturers and then told the public that these were criminal complaints. Just who's wearing the brass knuckles--Bill Gates or Janet Reno? I urge you to uphold Microsoft's property rights and vote against government intervention into its affairs. That would not only be an act of justice, but would prevent the incremental destruction of the entire software industry by government bureaucracy and regulation--Nader's ultimate goal. Sincerely, Johannes M. Hacker Phoenix, AZ What Naderites want is to have their Gates and eat him too! March 3, 1998 Dear Senator Hatch, I work as a programmer, but I do not work for Microsoft or its subsidiaries. At home I use an Apple Macintosh; the only Microsoft software I have on it is the free Internet Explorer browser. At work my colleagues and I work principally on Macintoshes. Please protect our freedom of choice--by standing up against the unjust persecution of Microsoft. Please remind your fellow Committee members that words have specific meanings. It is not "unfair play" to outcompete other businesses by supplying advantages they can't. It is not "force" to offer in trade a value so large that it makes the alternatives look prohibitively expensive. That is still a voluntary agreement--you are not taking from anyone anything to which they have any rightful claim. Please point out to the Committee that no one forcibly prevents anyone from choosing to use a Macintosh, or OS/2, or even UNIX (which can be obtained free of charge and isn't going anywhere). People can choose to use Netscape's browser, or Mosaic--which is also free and in the public domain. Too inconvenient? That inconvenience is the extent of the value Bill Gates is offering over the alternatives. By what arrogance do people take this value for granted and claim they have a right to it? Please help the Committee grasp the egregious context-dropping behind the idea that antitrust laws protect "choice" and the "free market." It is not a "free market" when the government restricts the benefits Bill Gates is allowed to offer in order to force us to deal with his envious competitors. This is a violation of my freedom of choice even if I do not choose to purchase Microsoft products. Do you think I am happy that government force is being used so that Netscape, Sun, Apple, etc., can become more inefficient and less innovative? People have no right to a "choice" of what to do with other people's property, and that includes Bill Gates' property. If they don't want to use Windows, or Explorer, that is their right. But then they should shut up and buy Macintoshes. What they have no right to do is to dictate the terms on which Bill Gates lets them have his product. "Bill Gates' product is too valuable--we resent depending on it so much, so we're just going to steal it--morality and justice be damned. He's rich so he can take it"--that is the shameful essence of the Naderite position. What such people want is to have their Gates and eat him too--to be able to use Windows while ignoring the terms of its creator and spitting in his face. Please tell the Committee that we ignore the terms of men such as Bill Gates at our peril, for they do what they do only on their own terms. If we wish to benefit from their creativity and industry, we must rigidly respect the one simple condition they request: freedom. Sincerely yours, Paul Blair New York, NY Please do not let Ralph Nader and Janet Reno turn our entire country into a bad neighborhood. March 2, 1998 Dear Senator Hatch, If I run a business and, finding myself out-classed by a more able competitor, run to the local Mafia don to have his legs broken, what kind of businessman am I? What effect do you think this would have on the local economy if a few other people did this, like the rest of my family and a few of my friends? How much trade do you think would go on now that we have eliminated that heartless, dog- eat-dog competition? Imagine a community dominated by gangs whose favor is required to run a business on their turf. You don't have to strain your imagination very hard. There are many such communities throughout our country. I would bet that, like myself, you avoid those places to the best of your ability. Please do not let Ralph Nader and Janet Reno turn our entire country into a bad neighborhood. Very sincerely, Cedar Bristol Microsoft is being persecuted for being the good. March 2, 1998 Dear Senator Feinstein, The allegation that Microsoft constitutes a dangerous "concentration of power" is as ambiguous as the Antitrust laws which make it possible to bring such issues to court. What exactly is Microsoft accused of? Committing fraud? No. Sabotaging its rivals' production lines? No. Violating anyone's right not to buy Microsoft products? No. The plain truth is that Microsoft is being persecuted for being good--in fact, for being the best in the market. In her article "Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason," novelist Ayn Rand identifies the nature of the principle that dictates court decisions in Antitrust cases as: "the penalizing of ability for being ability, the penalizing of success for being success, and the sacrifice of productive genius to the demands of envious mediocrity." The antitrust crusade against Microsoft is a demonstration of that principle in practice. Sincerely, Ronen Nakash West Hollywood, CA .
		home

.	.	.
		Designed by Integrate Interactive