e monopolized, but this is vastly different from the issue that stands before Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The question that must be distinguished is not if Microsoft will gain a monopoly over the Internet, but if it will acquire a monopoly on how people access the Internet. These two are wholly separate issues. This is not a question of control of intellectual information, but the means by which people gain *access* to that information. Even if the information provided by the Internet was infinite, the tools by which to get to that information is not. And thus a monopoly of the software to gain access to the Internet is very much possible. There are many corridors and keys that allow someone to gain access to the Internet. The real question here is whether Microsoft is seeking to widen it’s doors at the expense of others and at the same time seeking gatekeeper access to the Internet by seeking to obtain the only key that allows access to the Internet. A metaphor of this problem can be explained through a library building that has many entrances in which to reach the knowledge of books contained within. Is Microsoft seeking to close off the other entrances of other providers so that the only access is through its entrance? It would be very tempting to say yes, but that would be wholly unfair. Now that the problem and issue which is presented to us is clear, an examination of whether or not Microsoft is violating any anti-trust (anti-monopolistic) laws can now proceed.Before he installed "Windows 95," John Dodge connected to the Internet using software from a Microsoft competitor, CompuServe's "Internet in a Box." Not anymore. "Windows 95" silently disabled a key piece of his setup and made it too difficult for him to reinstall it. Dodge was not a novice. He is senior executive editor of the trade journal PC Week and so had access to the highest level support engineers. Even software professionals le...
