COLUMN: The real reason you should hate Microsoft

From Kent Malmros's, "Everything Old Is New Again," Fall '99 From Kent Malmros's, "Everything Old Is New Again," Fall '99Eyes all around campus, and the world, are focused on the Microsoft antitrust case. But for the wrong reasons. "A lot of people believe that while AT&T; did a good job, it could have done a much better job if it had competition," notes David Farber, a professor of Computer and Information Science at Penn. "In fact, very little innovation was found in the telephone system until there was competition." As Farber points out, monopolistic corporations are not the friends of anyone trying to start their own small business. If you're a Computer Science and Engineering student, Bill Gates isn't your friend. His company's existence makes your intelligence and aspirations that much more irrelevant. Maybe there are brilliant minds right here at Penn that could be working on a Web browser that would revolutionize the world. Believe it or not, some sleep-deprived computer geek in the Moore building probably has that capability. But, if Microsoft continues to exist, you'll never use the browser. You'll never even get the chance. Because no small business will find a niche in a Web browser market where one company has the capability to simply give away their technology. The same can be said for Microsoft's word processor software, financial software and office software. "Most of the impact of a monopoly is in the fact that a large number of kids want to give it a try themselves in the business world. But in situations like these, you live in morbid fear," Farber said. "If the likelihood is high of a company intervening in what you do, because of their financial strength, you tend to be very careful and stay out of businesses that could be very innovative." Not even large corporations can compete. Microsoft's ability to give away its Web browser forced Netscape to do the same thing, costing what used to be the second-largest software company in the world an incalculable amount of revenue and ultimately its corporate independence. Jackson concluded that the move was a deliberate attempt to put Netscape out of business. And you can't really argue with Jackson's conclusion -- Netscape's financial situation became so bleak that America Online bought the company this past year. The same thing happened to Quicken. It produced financial software well before Microsoft. But would you rather pay for Quicken, or use the same type of software you just happen to get for free when you buy Windows? Such power stifles innovation so drastically, that one might almost wonder what opportunities are left in the software business. There are certainly more elegant ways of committing suicide than beginning a company that produces operating systems. Even before students get to the entrepreneurial stage, Microsoft's dominance clashes with educational principles. Education is about exposure and options. Microsoft limits the magnitude of both. For instance, Microsoft might partner with a university. Say they cut a deal. If a university commits to using Microsoft software, maybe the "philanthropists" at Microsoft will throw in a bunch of computers. But, there's a catch. The university has to promise to use Microsoft products exclusively. "This was true of IBM for a long time -- campuses saw only what IBM did and that was all they saw," Farber said. "And they used IBM mainframes because [IBM] had the commercial power to buy their way in. You tend to do it if you are in the position where you can." These marketing techniques aren't accidental. Microsoft isn't flexing its silicon muscle to be kind; it wants to sell the best and brightest minds on their product. Education is about innovation. Microsoft isn't.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.