finding declares Microsoft to be a dangerous monopoly that has used its power unfairly to run competitors out of the market. The logic of this finding is the declaration that extraordinary success in business is dangerous and must be stopped. It is a notice to all the creators and achievers in this country that condemnation and punishment will be the reward for striving to succeed.The current ruling does not say whether Microsoft broke the law, nor does it say what the company's punishment will be. But it does declare Microsoft to be a danger to the "public good." All that Microsoft has done is to produce and improve its product and Seal Straughoffer it for sale on the free market, where customers are free to take it or leave it. The idea that this constitutes a dangerous form of coercion is false on its face. But even worse then the idea that Microsoft's action on the free market is dangerous, is the idea that action taken by Judge Jackson's court is beneficial. It seems that the real threat to consumers, and to the extraordinary growth of the computer industry, isnt Microsofts business practices, but the remedies being sought against Microsoft. What I find particularly confusing is the statement in Justice Jacksons Memorandum and Order of June 12th, that The Court is convinced forseveral reasons that a final and appealable judgement should be entered quickly. This statement sends a dual message, that Microsoft is guilty but then again Judge Jackson's finding of fact should be recognized as punitive and as a vehicle for making Microsoft a target for destructive government actions ranging from court-administered regulation to the forcible dismantling of the company. So does the Sherman Act, designed for the industrial age, pertain to the techno age? I feel that its application to Microsoft is inappropriate. The factors that made antitrust issues pertinent in the past are fast fading from todays society. As Robert Bork i...
