The day before May Day (sometimes referred to as ÒCommunist ChristmasÓ),
CNETÕs News.com ran
an over-1,600 word one-sided hatchet piece by Joe Wilcox attacking
Microsoft co-founder Bill GatesÕ testimony in the antitrust trial last
week. Wilcox culled his information from the usual suspects of
fashionable Microsoft-haters from elitist Ivy League universities,
so-called Òconsumer friendlyÓ antitrust attorneys and biased industry
analysts. Wilcox found six Microsoft haters who are all for breaking up
Microsoft because they know it will catapult the world into a
technological utopia. Not only that, but any factual points that Mr.
Gates made during his testimony about the benefits of a stable and
consistent computing platform (Microsoft Windows) for our free market
economy is secondary to their theories of how industry should work.
Yes, what WilcoxÕs story says is six out of six Microsoft-haters agree:
Bill Gates is lying when he says that Microsoft is an innovative company
and it must be destroyed for the benefit of all mankind.
I wouldnÕt have too much to say about this piece had Wilcox even
considered asking the venerable economist Dr. Walter E. Williams of
George Mason University or libertarian icon Robert W. Tracinski for
their views on the Microsoft antitrust suit in the interest of
journalistic balance. Much of what the six Microsoft-haters in WilcoxÕs
article is conjecture and sounds like it could be coming from the
writers of The X-Files: ÒIf you put the pieces together, what Gates was
really saying is that in his industry, competition would be bad,Ó whines
one high-paid antitrust law conspiracy theorist. ÒYou can't even tell
what would have emerged (in the industry) but for Microsoft's conduct,Ó
another conspiracy doomsayer from the halls of academia opines. Putting
the pieces together of Mr. GatesÕ testimony and we can see the hidden
meaning of ÒTrust the evil corporation because innovation comes from
monopoliesÓ? These same academics, lawyers and analysts who are bashing
the evil, big corporation of Microsoft would all scoff at a
fundamentalist Christian screaming about hidden messages in Marilyn
Manson and Slipknot songs.
In an effort to lend the tiniest particle of credibility to these six
snake oil salesmen, Wilcox claimed that Òlegal expertsÓ point to the
breakup of Ma Bell in 1984 and the communications boom that followed as
evidence that Mr. GatesÕ Òreasoning is flawedÓ (a phrase Wilcox sneaks
into the piece as a personal attack on GatesÕ intellect). Wilcox
continually repeats that Òlegal expertsÓ say that when the government
broke up AT&T it increased consumer choice, spurred innovation and led
to wireless technology. Uh-huh, now I have the choice of buying any
cheap, plastic, Chinese-made piece of crud phone rather than the
standard solid, heavy AT&T phones of the bad olÕ days. Not only that,
but I have the choice of eighteen different local and 57 different long
distance carriers to use on the plastic phone. Sure, thereÕs no telling
what kind of price, what kind of features or the level of service I will
get from those 75 different companies, but for the sake of Almighty
Choice I should just shut up and deal with it. Hey, isnÕt this whole
Òcommunications boomÓ great? WorldComÕs CEO stepped down today because
that companyÕs profits were down 66% from last quarter. SBC, Verizon
and AT&T lost a total of $4.5 billion last quarter in the diverse and
wonderful Òcommunications boom.Ó
LetÕs not gloss over the idea that wireless communications took ten to
fifteen years to become inexpensive and good enough for worldwide
prevalence because we all know it would never have appeared were it not
for the breakup of AT&TÕs monopolistic stranglehold on new
technologies. Do these guys want us to believe that wireless
communications have been available yet held back for years because of
some monopolistic conspiracy? Sci-fi writers like Robert Heinlein
envisioned wireless technologies decades before the first cell phone
tower was erected, but even a die-hard libertarian like Heinlein never
postulated that monopolistic AT&T had the technology and was keeping it
from consumers. Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick even predicted
that Heywood Floyd would call his daughter on her birthday from the
space station on a Ma Bell videophone in 2001: A Space Odyssey; howÕs
that for innovation?
In what is the most stunning bit of hypocrisy IÕve seen in the tech
press in a while, Wilcox and one of his six patsies agree that AppleÕs
model of ÒcompetitionÓ should be what should happen to Microsoft. In an
unbelievable couple of paragraphs, Wilcox and the IDC industry analyst
put forth the notion that Apple Computers controls the operating system
and therefore Òoffering more striking designs and software geared toward
specific consumer trends.Ó Somehow, the breakup of Microsoft will mean
that Dell, Gateway, HP-Compaq and any of the thousands of other PC
original equipment manufacturers Òcould certainly integrate the user
experience on behalf of its users in their own unique way. What would
really make it Apple-like is if over time, the PC becomes its own unique
thing rather than all these pieces that appear glued together as they do
today in the Windows environment.Ó
No, what would make the industry more ÒApple-likeÓ is to have the
hardware vendor dictate exactly what software you can put on the PC,
because thatÕs EXACTLY what Apple does. Apple created the operating
system, the iTunes, the iPhoto, the iDVD, the iThis and the iThat
specifically for the proprietary Apple hardware. This incredibly narrow
set of apps on a single hardware platform is an antitrust lawyerÕs,
academicÕs and analystÕs version of competition through diversity.
In the interest of a better life, people are asked to throw away
well-established standards. The better life is based on principles that
academics and elites have written and studied so much that even though
thereÕs empirical evidence to the contrary, the present must be
destroyed for the sake of the future. We should not even question the
future, because the elites and scholars know that future is always
better than the present or the past.
At least, thatÕs what the elites and scholars told the people in Cuba,
China, Cambodia, East Germany, RussiaÉ
Want to add to the list of Communist paradises or tell me how wrong I
am? Send
me an email.
<>
