| One of these factors is that software developers will not want to develop programs for an operating system that is not prevalent. Developing programs for different operating systems is not an easy task. The developer must basically recreate the entire program. To develop for an operating system that is not in use such as the old Linux systems that were not compatible with Windows would be a huge waste of funds, and the developer may take a huge loss. This leads to Windows being even more popular, as if more programs are available for this operating system, more people will buy that system, and the cycle will continue. This is a unique situation that has never existed before, and points to a problem with the laws. Another factor that is unique to the computer industry is that people in companies must be trained on operating systems. As most people are already being trained on Windows, companies do not want to invest in another operating system and have to invest further in training people on these operating systems. This leads to another, similar cycle effect. As more people are trained on Windows, more companies buy windows, and as more companies buy Windows, more people are trained on Windows. Again this may point to a change being needed in the laws. The list of unique factors continue, and Microsoft is not the only case of these problems. Throughout the history of computers certain companies have been in power. For these many unique reasons, it is natural that only one operating system can prevail. Perhaps Microsoft is simply unlucky to be in power at the time when computer business has become a big business. As government officials look into Microsoft they see these trends occurring and do not realize that the laws should be changed so that another monopoly doesn’t just develop. After studying the Microsoft case it seems as though the company has indeed participated in classical anticompetitive business practices. They have bundled software, ousted rivals through unfair means, and dodged the government many times. As the law stands, I believe that Microsoft should face punishment for what it has done. As we look at Supreme Court decisions, however, we should attempt to look at the big picture, and see what is really happening. If we do so we see that the nature of the computer business is different from any other business the government has had to deal with in its long history of making monopoly laws. I think that the Supreme Court is going to have to do much more than punish Microsoft. The operating system market naturally develops monopolies for many reasons, and if Microsoft does loose its power, another company will surely take its place. The actual computer business environment must be changed, or we should let the monopolies that develop stand. If the computer business continues to boom as it has in the last few years it seems certain that the government will have to do something to change the laws. Changing Microsoft may be necessary at the present time, but in the long run we must change the laws and the ways we look at monopolies. |