A few years ago our government decided to take Microsoft to court. Rather than discuss the legal case, which I consider merely a battle between high priced lawyers over legal technicalities (rather than an attempt to understand the issue and make a better society) I will explain in non-legal terms why Microsoft qualifies as a monopoly, and why Windows should be released to world so that everybody is free to start a business as a Windows developer.
 

Is Microsoft is a monopoly?

There are several operating systems competing with Windows right now (e.g., Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, and QNX). This could give you the impression that there is plenty of competition for Windows. However, none of these systems have more than a tiny fraction of the desktop market.
 
 

FreeBSD proves Microsoft is a monopoly

TBefore I explain this, imagine Mercedes-Benz offering their cars for free. They finance this free car operation through donations, volunteer workers, sales of T-shirts, and the servicing of cars. Certainly you can understand that other car companies would be devastated.

Next consider the issue of “product dumping”. When a company offers their products at a price that is below the cost of manufacturing it, they are accused of a crime. Using a car analogy, imagine Mercedes offering their cars for less than the cost of manufacturing them. They subsidize the cost of their cars through donations, volunteer workers, and sales of T-shirts.

Now consider that FreeBSD is a high quality operating system that is offered for free. Some of the FreeBSD people are volunteers who work in their spare time. They also collect donations and sell services. This goes beyond what we call “product dumping”.

According to the theory of free enterprise, consumers would get a copy of FreeBSD, software developers would develop applications for FreeBSD, and Microsoft would take the FreeBSD people to court and accuse them of destroying competition. Our courts would rule that the FreeBSD organization must stop giving their products away for free; that they must charge a price that is above their development cost.

Our courts would also rule that the FreeBSD volunteers are “slaves”, and the FreeBSD organization would be required to pay them a salary, and pay taxes on those employees.

In order for an organization to use volunteer employees they must follow certain rules, such as not competing with conventional businesses. However, FreeBSD has both volunteer employees and they compete against conventional companies. I suspect that the FreeBSD organization is violating our laws, but Microsoft doesn't care because FreeBSD has almost no effect on the sale of Windows. FreeBSD only affects operating systems for servers, but not enough for anybody to start a court case over it.

The FreeBSD organization could take this one step further and offer to pay us to install FreeBSD on our computer, but even that would have no effect on the sale of Windows. Sure, many of us would take the money and install FreeBSD, but most of us would continue to use and upgrade Windows.
 

Quit with the Yugo remarks!

However, I am not implying that FreeBSD is equivalent to a Mercedes; rather, I am trying to explain the concept that volunteer workers are not permitted in free enterprise, and neither is it permissible for a company to provide its products for free. Free enterprise depends upon competition, and the competition must be fair. Free enterprise is destroyed by a corruption and by monopolies. 

If you have trouble with the car analogy, consider skeletons. FreeBSD is like a high-quality skeleton, and Windows is like a human being with a slightly inferior skeleton. FreeBSD is capable of creating a high-quality operating system, but nobody wants add flesh to its bones. 
 

We cannot compete with Windows 

Our free enterprise system gives us the freedom to start any business we please and compete with any product. Unfortunately, there are certain products where this concept fails. For example, we cannot have true competition with electricity, nor with public water supplies.

During the 1980's nobody could offer much proof that competition would fail with desktop operating systems because at the time there was lots of competition. But during the 1990's applications became incredibly complex, and the trend is to make applications even smarter and easier (ie, more complex). Also, businesses have been accumulating data files for decades. Some database files are over a terabyte in size! This has the effect of making businesses reluctant to switch from Windows.

The applications and data files are what makes Windows valuable. It is the lack of applications and data that makes other operating systems so unattractive.

I say it is time we admit that competition cannot work with desktop operating systems. Rather than try to compete against Windows, we should have competition to produce the best version of Windows.
 

We have a right to compete with Windows

You could start a company and produce an operating system that is superior to Windows, but only a few consumers would switch to it, and only a few software developers would make applications or drivers for it. The proof is that we already have systems that are superior to Windows. Some of these systems have been offered for free for 20 years with almost no effect over the sale of Windows.
 
 

Should we break up Microsoft?

Release Windows to the world

Consumers would find companies competing to improve the stability of Windows, the Plug and Play features, and the ease of installation. Some companies may specialize in a version of home use, while others may concentrate on versions for businesses, and still others may create a version for software developers that facilitates the development of software.

As long as each company designs their version to use the same drivers and run the same software, consumers would be able to switch between the different versions of Windows without disrupting their business or their lives.
 
 

If there were competing brands of Windows, when you purchase a computer from a retailer, such as Dell or Gateway, you would be able to specify which brand of Windows you prefer. Microsoft and others would finally be under pressure to make a version of Windows that we like.

Most people would not have a preference for their brand of Windows, just as they do not have a preference for their video card or CD-ROM. For people who do not have a preference, the retailer would select a brand that they feel it will make the happiest customers and create the fewest customer support problems. 

This is happening right now with video cards and hard disks. Retailers are selecting components according to what they feel will make the happiest customers and the fewest customer support problems. The manufacturers of components are under pressure by retailers to provide high-quality products that are easy to use and install. 

There is also specialization with video cards.  For example, some cards are specifically designed for games, while others are designed for controlling machines, and others are for general-purpose business applications.  This same specialization would occur with Windows. 

If there was competition with Windows, computer magazines would occasionally review the different brands of Windows. This would put pressure on the manufacturers to improve their version of Windows, just as we see with other products. 
 

I suggest competition, not open source

However, I am not advocating “open source” Windows. The companies that develop Windows would be allowed to keep their source code a secret and profit from it. 

Open source fanatics often complain that closed source software does not always fit the niche application that they need it for. They want the source code so that they can tailor the software to fit their particular application. If there was competition with Windows, however, some companies would make versions of Windows that fit some of these niche applications. While many niche applications would be too small for anyone to bother with, some of them would be dealt with, thereby sparing at least some companies the expense and trouble of modifying source code. 
 
 

Would the different versions of Windows be compatible?

It is conceivable that different companies can compete with each other to produce a better version of Windows, and that they produce versions of Windows that are more compatible with each other than are the current versions that Microsoft has created. 

Furthermore, the government, retailers, and the consumers would put pressure on the Windows companies to provide compatible versions. For example, Gateway and Dell are unlikely to offer a brand of Windows that is incompatible with the others because of the customer support problems it would create for them. This would put pressure on the Windows companies to produce a truly compatible version. 

As the situation is today, Microsoft dominates the computer retailers. The computer retailers are submissive; they accept whatever Microsoft gives them. But if there are different companies competing to produce Windows, these companies would be trying to please the retailers. 
 
 

Government supervision would be required

Is our government capable of supervising Windows?

The Linux philosophy in which people share software without the need for any government supervision is just a variation of Marxism. This philosophy will occasionally work with small groups of people, but it has failed miserably with nations. There are many situations in which government supervision brings improvements to our lives, even if the government is imperfect.
 
 
 

Poor nations would also benefit from this

More importantly, this would provide the poor nations with an incentive to become computer programmers and earn a living for themselves rather than look for handouts of free software. Mexico City is in the process of switching from Windows to Linux because they believe that the price of Windows is simply too much for them to afford. However, it would be better for them to encourage computer programming skills among their people rather than encourage their citizens to hold their hand out for free software. Doesn't Mexico already have enough beggars? They beg in the streets for money and food; do we need them also begging for free software?

Linux fanatics will probably respond that Linux encourages people to get involved and help develop the free, open source software. However, only a few people are interested in joining this movement. Most people are too busy trying to make a living for themselves during the day, and during their free time they want to socialize or relax.

The open source movement expects people to give up their free time to develop software. The Linux philosophy is as silly as expecting automobile engineers to develop automobiles at home in their spare time for free.

The open source movement creates socially dysfunctional societies. If we followed the Linux philosophy, we would spend our day working for living, and then come home and sit in front of our computer to develop software for free.

What is the purpose of living? Are we here on this planet merely to make free software? Why not develop software during the day and make a living from it, and then at night we can relax, or engage in social or recreational activities? 

However, we can lose our privileges when we violate the rules of our society. If you commit certain crimes, the government will get involved in your life, and possibly seize your property and put you in jail.

Microsoft is a corporation, and a corporation has certain privileges, such as being allowed to sell whatever products they please at whatever price they please. Corporations are also allowed to compete with other companies. The government is not allowed to tell them what to do or how to do it.

However, corporations must treat consumers according to the rules of our society, and they must compete with other companies according to our rules. If a company violates our rules, the government can get involved.

Therefore, if Microsoft has been committing crimes, the government is justified in getting involved, and possibly seizing their assets. So the question is, did Microsoft commit any crimes? And if so, what were they?
 
 

Why didn't Microsoft make a version of Windows NT for home users?

This could have been nothing more than a lousy management decision, but I think it was a deliberate scam. I think Microsoft was worried that if they provided home users with a version of Windows NT, many businesses would have purchased it rather than the more expensive version for businesses. Also, I think Microsoft wanted to create a lousy version of Windows for home users in order to entice home users to purchase upgrades.
 

The resistance to upgrades

I am certain that Microsoft has encountered this resistance to upgrades, and that they decided to put some irritating features in the home versions of Windows that will cause businesses to avoid it and cause consumers to look forward to the next upgrade to Windows in the hope that the next version will correct these irritations.

Although I understand Microsoft's reasoning, I would never do this with my own software. (The irritating features of my software are accidental rather than deliberate.)

For Microsoft to deliberately produce lousy software in order to create future sales would be equivalent to a tire company deliberately producing tires that wear out prematurely so that they can sell more tires. Or imagine a car mechanic deliberately ruining something on your car in order to make you come back to him for more repairs.

Most people can understand that it would be wrong for a car mechanic to ruin something on your car, but the common citizen cannot understand that Microsoft is committing the same type of crime when it deliberately creates lousy software. This is an example of a crime that is too intellectual for the most people to comprehend.

Of course, it would be difficult to prove that Microsoft created the lousy software on purpose. Microsoft can easily explain all problems as being due to mistakes.
 
 

Microsoft hampers other developers

I looked for a while in the help files, and gave up, and then looked again days or weeks later and then gave up, and then looked some more and gave up. Eventually I asked somebody who knew more about Windows that I did about this issue. He looked for a while and then gave up also. I came to the conclusion that Microsoft deliberately did not provide access to this information. Or, if they provided it, they did so in such a confused manner that neither I nor the other person could figure out where it was.

I suspect that Microsoft was deliberately trying to hide this information from other developers in order to make everybody else's software look stupid. When my software wanted to write to a floppy drive, I had no way of knowing if there was a disc in the drive, so I had no choice but to try to write to the floppy drive and hope. If there was no disk in the drive a stupid error message would appear on the screen from Windows. By comparison, Microsoft software knows when a disk is in the drive. Microsoft's software also knows which disk is the floppy drive, which is the CD-ROM, and which is the hard disk. The end result is that Microsoft's software looks much smarter than everybody else's software. Furthermore, I wasted many hours of my time searching for this information, whereas Microsoft employees do not have to waste any time because they have access to it.

What Microsoft is doing is equivalent to an automobile company producing a car but not providing the mechanics with a complete description of the engine. The mechanics would then have to waste their time trying to figure it out.

The new versions of Windows provide access to this information, but Microsoft has provided some of these functions in such a confusing manner that I still have not figured out how to use them all. I think the reason Microsoft provided this information recently is because of fears that they could get in trouble by not providing it, so they now provide it but in a confusing manner. This is equivalent to a car company providing mechanics with information on how to repair the car, but in such a goofy manner that the mechanics waste hours trying to figure out how to read it.

Unfortunately, proving that Microsoft did these things on purpose is difficult. Microsoft could easily claim that these are simply mistakes.
 
 

Was Windows designed to hamper competition?

Today our economic situation is dramatically different, but we are still using the same primitive system. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that we are using a system that was designed for another era. A good example of this are the women who complain that our society discriminates against women. They believe that our society is deliberately picking on women due to some evil quality in men. However, our society was designed in an era in which most women raised children and socialized during the day.
Our society was not designed to discriminate against women; rather, it was designed for a particular way of life that no longer exists.

Our society is based on principles that no longer apply to us, but there is resistance to changing the system, just as there is resistance to changing Windows. Many women interpret this resistance as a sign that men are evil and want to hurt women. These accusations are as silly as the FreeBSD organization complaining that people are discriminating against FreeBSD.

Nobody is discriminating against FreeBSD. Rather, we resist changing our operating systems. Likewise, nobody is discriminating against women. Rather, we are operating with a very primitive culture and everybody is resisting making changes to it. For example, when someone proposes changes to our tax system or our school system, only the trivial changes are considered. Most people resist dramatic changes.

Our economic system is like a small rowboat that was designed for a gentle river but which has wandered off into the Arctic Ocean and is being knocked around by storms and icebergs. We've been trying to patch this primitive system with unions, government regulations, government agencies, consumer groups, and nonprofit organizations. Unfortunately, all of these patches bring problems as well as improvements.

Free enterprise is failing to work properly with electricity, airlines, and many other areas that did not exist in the 1700's. Our solution has been to create phony competition in which businesses compete under government supervision.

Free enterprise is also failing to work properly with desktop operating systems, which is why there is no competition for Windows. Allowing companies to compete with Windows under government supervision will have disadvantages, but there are disadvantages in allowing Microsoft to dominate the desktop operating system. There is no perfect solution to this problem. We simply have to pick a solution and give it a try. If it turns out that our solution is worse than what we already have, we can try another solution.
 
 
 

Should we do something about Microsoft Office also?

For example, if Corel had not wasted money on Linux, and if they had instead put that money into improving Corel Office, they would have a better version that would be more capable of competing. Also, when Microsoft programmers do not have special access to Windows, Microsoft will not have any advantages over the rest of us.