Graphic by Paul Wilson

Getting played

Microsoft must not be forced to dumb down product

By: Mike Walters

Posted: 12/1/03

The very mention of the name Microsoft conjures up many different ideas in people's minds, but lately these ideas tend toward legal matters. Anti-trust litigation that began a few years ago has now spread overseas, where the European Union is investigating more monopoly claims. Though these claims may have little direct effects on Americans, they reveal an error in public thinking - that everyone has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," rather than a right to the free pursuit of it.

In these hearings, regulators are charging Microsoft with abusing its operating system dominance by including a free copy of Media Player with every copy of Windows to fend off competitors RealPlayer and Apple QuickTime. Media Player plays audio and video files. If it wins its case, Microsoft could be fined more than $3 billion and be forced to make a version of Windows without Media Player included.

But are Microsoft's competitors' rights really being violated by the way Microsoft sells its products?

RealPlayer and Apple believe that including Media Player free as a Windows feature hurts their chances to sell their own product to consumers, who typically don't purchase alternative programs for ones they already have. Their appraisal is certainly correct, since Media Player plays almost all the same files as RealPlayer and Quicktime.

The business world does not guarantee a profit simply because one has a product - sometimes the consumer may for his own reasons decide not to purchase it. The fact that another company's product may be better suited to the customer's needs doesn't infringe upon competitors' rights - it simply means they are unsuccessful and should either make their product more competitive or find a new line of work.

"Bundling" a soft drink with every McDonalds meal does not violate the rights of a Pepsi-owned vending machine around the corner. It is up to the customer to decide if he would rather pay for a soft drink separately and which of the two options offers certain beverages, free refills or a cheaper price. In both examples, the only control a company has on making a sale is the control of its product. To attempt to boost sales by directly oppressing a competitor by any other means than bettering its product is to engage in an act of coercion against the other company. When a competitor such as this uses coercion, as RealPlayer and Apple are trying to do, they violate a company's rights.

In this case, Microsoft's rights are being violated.

RealPlayer and Apple display obvious disregard for legal rights in the proposed "solution" to their problem: They want Microsoft to create a new program, a version of Windows without Media Player. What authority can they claim in forcing another company to send programmers and testers to work on a program when they don't have to? RealPlayer and Apple claim no such right, only their desire to be on an "equal playing field."

This "playing field" is an illusion that inferior companies try to create for themselves.
RealPlayer, Quicktime and Media Player are not equal, despite any litigation or coercion the companies may try to exercise. All these programs have individual differences, which are up to the customer to evaluate. The choice between generic cola and Coke is one of preference, in which the customer weighs cost over taste to decide which is the best choice. The principle for buying soda and computer programs is identical - it is the choice of a free consumer.

Microsoft refuses to produce a product that is inferior to the version of Windows it has worked hard to produce, and no one has the right to force the company to sacrifice its integrity because of other lazy corporations who find it easier to shackle their superior competitor rather than work harder to make a better product. Their case is a mockery regarding the principles of justice and capitalism - exchanging the best of the customer's productive effort for the seller's best product.

Should Microsoft lose this case, the economic impact of fines and extra work would undoubtedly return upon the American consumer in the form of higher prices, but the moral loss would be far worse. The legal system must never be used as a tool for irresponsible companies to pervert justice for their own ends. Competition must get out of the courthouses and back on the shelves.