The Case For Microsoft

Had the proposed plan to dismantle Microsoft been implemented 10 years ago, such innovations might never have found their way to broad consumer availability. They never could have moved from the "applications" company to the "OS" company that the Justice Department envisions. Consumers and developers would have been harmed.

The DOJ plan reflects a profound hostility to Microsoft's efforts to make products that work well with one another. For example, the plan would effectively prohibit the new Windows and applications companies from engaging in technical discussions to develop new versions of Windows and Office. Such close cooperation would be impossible under the DOJ plan because it mandates that no technical information can be discussed that is not "simultaneously published" to the entire computer industry, which would be a practical impossibility.

The DOJ scheme permanently prohibits any further improvements to the Internet software in Windows. It would mean no improvements in browser technology and no support for new standards or technologies that would otherwise have helped protect your privacy or the safety of your children online.

The DOJ scheme also effectively imposes a ban of up to 10 years on the addition of any significant new end-user features to Windows. New features must be provided on an a la carte basis and priced separately to computer manufacturers. Provisions like these would kill innovation in the OS--and impair the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of independent software developers who depend on constant innovation in the OS to make their products more attractive. Updates to Windows and Office technologies that could, for example, protect against attacks such as the Love Bug virus would also be much harder for computer users to obtain.

The effect of this lawsuit will be to punish Microsoft no matter what harm this does to consumers, software developers, the industry that has driven America's remarkable growth--or, indeed, the entire economy. That is why Microsoft plans to appeal the district-court decision, which is at odds with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals and with antitrust law. We remain confident that the courts will reaffirm that every company, no matter how successful, should be encouraged to build better products for consumers.