Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:40:47 -0500
To: d*****@microsoft.com
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your note, it's nice to hear from you.
The short answer about "shouldn't it be what the best product is?" is no. I'll try to get into a longer answer without writing a major thesis.
I don't believe any person who wants to foster innovation and competition should cast an economic vote for Microsoft by purchasing its products. The reprehensible behavior of Microsoft's executive leadership has made the issue of product quality virtually a moot point. Product quality comparisons are meaningless when the context in which the products are created is hopelessly tilted in favor of the monopolist using its monopoly illegally. Given the broader social and economic context in which your products are being originated, I would have qualms selecting the Microsoft product even if it were twice as good and only half as expensive as the competition.
If Microsoft was composed only of people like you who are earnestly trying to deliver excellence and value, then my attitude might well be different. I believe you are a decent person who just wants to be given a fair chance, and I believe you want to be best by winning in a competition that is fair to the competitors. But the problem is that you are not in charge of Microsoft. The Microsoft agenda is set by top executives who have a clear, public track record of behaving very differently. The conclusion we must draw from the body of publicly available evidence is that the people at the helm of Microsoft will go to any length to crush competition. Law is not a meaningful constraint to these people, and they have demonstrated a willingness to act unlawfully to grow their wealth and power beyond any bounds.
I do not object to their wealth, do not insist that the original monopoly was obtained illegally, and I do not hate the company or anyone there. My problems are based on the fact that my purchase decisions are ultimately and inevitably connected to a social choice - the choice whether I can tolerate a corporation behaving as Microsoft has behaved?
I cannot.
I am almost sure you do not approve of the business behavior that led Ford Motor Company to decide not to correct a known, fatal defect in its vehicles because it was projected to be less expensive to settle the ensuing wrongful death lawsuits. If I had been a judge presiding in that matter, then Ford would not possibly have been able to afford the damages I'd have awarded. You can be sure I will think of that episode when I consider which vehicle I will purchase next.
For similar reasons, I do not approve of the behavior and choices of Microsoft's management. Though nobody may have died in the explosion of a flaming gastank, I mourn the deaths of many fine companies, products and ideas. I believe that too many of those who tried to compete with Microsoft failed, at least in part, because Microsoft was behaving illegally. I see no reason to believe that the company is being led differently today, and I do not want to contribute to Microsoft successfully obtaining its next-generation monopoly on the bones of the companies it has crushed with its current one. Giving my money to Microsoft does not lead to greater innovation, greater competition, lower prices or any of the many benefits that should accrue to consumers in a free-market economy functioning normally without a dominant monopolist.
Please don't think that I am somehow greatly enamoured of any other corporation's behavior, or that I don't realize there are serious problems with how many other leading technology companies behave. I hope you will grant that I am not nearly so naive. I am only too aware of the negative side of certain companies you probably think of. None of them, with the possible exception of AOL, is a problem of the magnitude of Microsoft. My government is unwilling to enforce an anti-trust conviction and hold Microsoft meaningfully accountable for its infractions. Now I can only expect the company to consider itself free to proceed with "business as usual", perhaps making illegal use of its monopoly even more brazenly than before.
The only person whose choices I can control is myself, Doug. I can't change Microsoft, but I can change where I spend my money. That is the ultimate expression of consumer choice, and I hope you now understand better the choice that I feel technology consumers are facing. I genuinely do try to choose the "best" product. The simple fact, however, is that "best" is the superlative form of "good", and the evidence leaves me no choice but to conclude that Microsoft is not a good company. With that in mind, how can its products possibly be "best"?
Warm regards,
Rick Ross
rick@javalobby.org
