Anti-trust decision restricts consumers

When you buy a car, you expect it to work.

You expect that the steering wheel is there, that it has seats,
and that there’s a door (preferably more than one).
Similarly, when you buy a copy of Microsoft Windows for your
computer, you expect it to work ““ you expect that it has all
the functionality a good operating system should have.

After settling its anti-trust case with the Department of
Justice, Microsoft soon found itself fighting another legal battle,
this time with the European Commission.

In the U.S. case, Microsoft was criticized for including its
Internet Explorer browser in its operating system. The case was
based on the idea that when Microsoft includes Internet Explorer as
standard, other Internet browsers cannot compete.

The European Commission anti-trust case is much the same ““
but this time it’s about the Windows Media Player. After the
culmination of years of proceedings, the Commission fined Microsoft
about $650 million and ordered that the company offer a version of
the operating system that does not contain Windows Media
Player.

Microsoft complied and created a new version of Windows without
the Windows Media Player called “Windows XP Reduced Media
Edition.” The court was not satisfied.

The European Commission now claims that the title makes the new
version seem unappealing to consumers, so the court has ordered
that Microsoft come up with a new name that isn’t so likely
to turn off consumers. Essentially, the court has ordered Microsoft
to defraud its customers into thinking they’re getting a
fully functional version of Windows even though they’re
not.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said in response to the
court’s decision, “We respect the Commission’s
authority,” but thinks the decision hurts the consumer. No
kidding.

To come back to the car analogy, it’s like finding your
brand new Mercedes Benz suddenly doesn’t come with a radio
anymore ““ and the dealer can’t even tell you because it
would make the car sound less functional.

The problem facing the court isn’t that “Reduced
Media Edition” sounds less functional ““ it’s that
“Reduced Media Edition” is less functional.
That’s what reduced means.

Part of what makes Windows ““ or any other operating system
““ nice to use is that it comes standard with software you can
use to enhance your computing experience. If you don’t like
the software it includes, then you can easily install any of a
plethora of others.

Don’t like the Windows Media Player? Use RealPlayer.

Don’t like Internet Explorer? Use Mozilla FireFox.

The success ““ if you could call it that ““ of the
anti-trust cases against Microsoft are spurring even more potential
lawsuits.

After Microsoft recently announced the release of its
AntiSpyware program, there were concerns that it may be stepping on
the toes of competing products. Last week, Microsoft announced
plans to release an antivirus program, and concerns have mounted as
to whether it too will come under the harsh criticism of anti-trust
regulators.

I may be out on a limb here, but I thought that when a company
puts a new product out on the market, competition increases and
consumers benefit. But in the backwards world of Microsoft-bashing,
it seems the more products that are on the market, the more
consumers are hurt.

And why should the lawsuits stop with Internet Explorer and
Windows Media Player? Is the next target of “anti-competitive
bundling” the Microsoft Notepad? Paint? The calculator? The
Start menu, even? If someone wants to use Microsoft Windows with a
UNIX kernel, shouldn’t he be allowed to?

The point is that Microsoft knows users expect to be able to use
their computers when they install Windows. Having to go out and
install a bunch of extra features is just plain tedious ““ not
to mention extraordinarily difficult to do without an Internet
browser.

Realizing this, Europe’s PC manufacturers aren’t
even interested in stocking the new version of Windows because they
know demand will be too low.

If the European Commission expects to protect consumers by
restricting their choices, then it expects what never was and never
will be. The anti-trust case is just that ““ the Commission
doesn’t trust consumers to make decisions for themselves.

Excuse me for running the car analogy into the ground, but the
anti-trust decision leaves European consumers in a mess. Expecting
to glide smoothly down the road of computer ownership, they instead
find that their brand-new car wasn’t allowed to have brakes
included.

Hurst is a first-year chemical engineering student. E-mail
him at khurst@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *