Lungren’s Unfortunate Stand on Microsoft
As I read through your “Meet the Candidates” profile on Attorney General Dan Lungren (May 4), I was frankly unable to reconcile the “pro-business” candidate Lungren so actively wishes to be with the anti-business attorney general he has become with his recent actions against Microsoft.
Unable to reconcile, that is, until I realized that politicians often exchange principles for votes. And beating up on Microsoft has become a popular pastime. Somewhere out there resides a poll showing Lungren’s chances at governorship are greater if he tackles the infamous Bill Gates than if he sticks to the principles that brought him this far.
That’s sad. What happened to this country’s respect for success? We’ve gotten to a point where a U.S. senator feels justified in deriding Bill Gates as “un-American” because Microsoft is too profitable. Where a consumer advocate is discovered using the very software he was so loathe to have others use. Where a Republican attorney general files a suit to force a major corporation to sell its competitor’s products.
Let’s face it the key issue here is not whether there is a monopoly, it’s whether or not Microsoft is making too much money. If Microsoft were going broke (say, a crisis of Chrysler-like proportions), most of the current crop of critics would, instead of pounding the pulpit, be demanding government subsidies to save an American institution.
And the computer industry moves much too fast for the government to take effective action, even if it might seem needed at the moment. Microsoft’s current dominance has less to do with its success in writing software than with the failure of its competition to produce anything better. The software companies that succeeded over the past few years, such as Corel and Symantec, were those that were quick to recognize that they needed to write software for Windows.
Some companies deliberately chose not to write application software for Windows because they feared it would strengthen Microsoft’s hold on operating systems. Lotus and Word Perfect were both enjoying much more success in application software than Microsoft ever had. But they felt their success would assure that Microsoft couldn’t adopt a new platform without their participation.
As a result, when the market (good old-fashioned competition!) chose Windows anyway, Lotus and Word Perfect had nothing to offer. When they finally entered the Windows arena, it was with software hastily written and poorly implemented, because they were already way behind Microsoft.
Lotus and Word Perfect tried to hurt Microsoft, and ended up hurting themselves. They were too concerned with hurting the competition, and not nearly concerned enough with succeeding on their own merits.
This is one rock-solid Republican who fears his party’s heir-apparent, Dan Lungren, is way too concerned with garnering votes, and not nearly concerned enough with succeeding on his own merits.
CHIP MEYER
President
The Chip Inc.
