Case against Microsoft about more than browsers The vision for a post-industrial commerce is at stake By Michael Naccarato What a difference a couple of weeks make. One minute the most powerful business entity in the world is chugging along, pulling the rug out from small "rivals," moving into a gazillion new product areas at the same time, and otherwise gleefully fulfilling its self-appointed role as Master of the Universe. The next, the U.S. Justice Department and 20 state counterparts, accuse Microsoft of anti-competitive practices and are trying, if not to break up the company, then at least to curtail its monopolistic bent. I'm speaking, of course, of the anti-trust lawsuit launched against software giant Microsoft a few weeks ago. Alas, poor, helpless CEO Bill Gates himself can see no compelling reason for the government's actions. "Why are they picking on us?" he might wonder. "Why doesn't anybody like us anymore?" On the other hand, the high-tech companies responsible for egging the government on in its anti-trust action, firms like Netscape, Sun Microsystems, Oracle - that is, pretty well everyone except Intel - come across a bit disingenuous themselves, hoping the Justice Department will do for them what they weren't able to do for themselves: outmaneuvre Microsoft. Hence, some are framing the question in this way: Do Microsoft-like business practices constitute tough, smart competition, or are they intended to dominate a market or harm a rival? Setting aside particular issues of fact such as whether or not Microsoft approached Netscape with a collusive offer to divide the Web browser market, or whether it specifically sought to destroy Netscape, the essence of the case should come down to a decision about the type of free enterprise Americans want in the information age. Surely a system that served the industrial age so well is not necessarily the best-suited in the radically changing environment we find ourselves in today. The old legal concept of ownership that made industrialism possible - specifically, the ideas of property and copyright - is under attack by technological changes so sweeping that they were unimaginable just 20 years ago. Neither legislators nor the courts have any idea what ownership means in the context of the Internet. Hence, the Microsoft case should rest on defining what constitutes fair business practice in this new age. No less is required. Whether the government is up to the task, however, is debatable. We may yet be too close to the fray to clearly understand what is at stake, and hence what an effective, well-balanced post-industrial business environment should look like. Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit, it will most likely represent just one of many attempts to come to terms with what technology means to us and how we will approach the future. Are we going to be dragged into it, clinging to outdated notions and impractical beliefs? Or will we embrace it and forge a new and better way of doing things? Comments: mnacc@halhinet.on.ca