An Open Letter to the US Department of InJustice
From William H. Gates III
Dear DOJ Lawyers:
I'll be open and honest about why Microsoft should not be broken up into BabySofts1 by the court.
It's quite simple. What's good for Microsoft is good for the country. Here's how:
1. Innovation is paramount.
Preventing innovation -- which the DOJ intends to do -- is inexcusable. Without innovation2, there would be no Dancing Paper Clip in Office 97. There would be no Blue Screen of Death. There would be no hidden flight simulator in Excel 97. There would be no embedded serial numbers in Office documents that Microsoft can use to track down the author.
A key example is the integration of Internet Explorer and Windows. This is undoubtedly good for the consumer. Of course, such bundling of products renders it quite difficult for competitors (Netscape) to survive, but this debate is not about whether AOL/Netscape can make money, it's about how best to benefit the consumer.
2. Microsoft directly benefits the Gross Domestic Product of the US and other countries.
Without the faults and instability of Windows and other Microsoft solutions, thousands -- if not millions -- of computer consultants, tech support workers, and software engineers would be out of a job. For instance, millions of dollars have been made by anti-virus companies producing software to plug breaches in Windows security. This is good for the economy.
Moreover, the amount of electricity (and therefore, oil, coal, and other fuel) used to power Windows computers while rebooting, waiting for the OS to load, or when fixing problems, is astronomical and is of direct benefit to utility companies. In addition, the paper used to print manuals and Microsoft promotional leaflets that accompany every product ensures the lumber yards and pulp mills can employ more people. In short, Microsoft indirectly benefits many sectors of the economy.
3. We're not a monopoly. We have competition. So there.
A growing body of programmers are contributing to operating systems like Linux3 and FreeBSD4 that are freely available over the Internet (and come with source code that can be freely modified and copied5). Some within Microsoft consider these alternatives to be superior to Microsoft solutions.6
Of course, Linux and other "Open Source Software" projects represent a competitive threat to Microsoft. If the court splits up Microsoft, or unduly punishes us, we won't be able to efffectively compete against this threat.7 If allowed to spread, the Open Source movement could fill the entire computer industry with software that's available for free and can be copied at will. This would have negative economic consequences on the computer industry. As pointed out in Item 2 above, millions of people might be out of a job. We must fight this competitive threat to keep the econony strong.
4. Our discriminatory pricing scheme benefits academia.
Students (and instructors) can purchase Microsoft products at little or no cost8. This allows them to use the latest, greatest technology for peanuts. Of course, these people will only know how to use Microsoft products, so they'll be locked in an endless upgrade cycle when they leave school, but that's a small price to pay to bring software to the beleaguered education system. (Oh, and while I'm being honest, I'll point out that the marginal cost to product a copy of software is virtually negligible once the software is developed, so even with cut-throat prices for students we're still making money.)
For a short time Microsoft offered stipends to professors who advertised Microsoft products in the classroom, but that was quickly discontinued when we realized it didn't benefit consumers or the economy. Don't let those fools at the Boycott Microsoft9 or Support Group for People Used by Microsoft10 websites lead you otherwise -- we do care about the consumer.
5. Everybody else does it.
Astroturf campaigns11, hidden incentives to non-profit organizations to promote us12, sabotage13, mafia-like activities14, predatory licensing with computer manufacturers15, and other standard Microsoft business practices16 have been employed by other corporations for decades, if not centuries. Why is Microsoft being singled out?
In conclusion, it should be self-evident that Microsoft is beneficial to consumers and the economy, and should therefore not be the target of anti-trust laws.
Signed,
William H. Gates III
The World's Richest ManTM
P.S. This document was created without using any Microsoft products, which proves that we don't have a monopoly. Of course, this would look much better if I had used Microsoft Word 2000®, but that's not the point.
Online References:
UPDATES/lat_microsoft0410.htm