Should companies be compelled to make life easier for their competitors? Why should Microsoft make life easier for its competitors, does that not fly in the face of the spirit of free market competition? The EU has threatened the Redmond software company with daily fines of 2 million euros unless it complies with an order to give competing firms greater access to Microsoft technology. The company was ordered to provide interface documentation that would allow non-Microsoft work group servers “to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers.” Microsoft argues, correctly so, that turning over such information violates intellectual property rights, which it does.

Essentially, the EU is ordering Microsoft to prop up failed companies who can’t compete on the merits of their own products. Why should a company be required to aid its competitors? Some would argue that Microsoft is a monopoly? A monopolistic situation, however, implies a lack of choice; where there is one supplier for a particular product, in this case an operating system. This supposition is clearly flawed. At no point in the history of modern personal computing has their ever been a true monopoly in operating systems, as there has always been a plethora of choices for consumers. Consumers can choose between Linux, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows, Unix, etc…

Because 75% (or more) of consumers prefer Microsoft products is not an acceptable grounds for alleging Microsoft is an illegal Monopoly. Indeed, even if Microsoft were to become the only supplier of operating systems in the world, this came about as a result of competition in which rival producers failed to measure up. If General motors were to developed a new, highly efficient automobile engine, should that company be compelled to simply turn over its research to rival carmakers so they could compete? Of course not. Should Coca Cola be compelled to turn over its secret formula just to aid Pepsi? Should Kentucky Fried Chicken reveal all of the original herbs and spices used in preparing its chicken just to aid Popeye’s?

Microsoft, because of its unparalleled and unrivaled success, however, must submit itself to arbitrary and socialistic business rules in order to placate European regulators. In a free market environment firms produce goods and services, which consumers then purchase. Those goods and services, which have the greatest appeal to consumers will become a success. Those goods and services that lack appeal go the way of OS/2, the Commodore 64 and the Amiga. Even though we are and have for some time been loyal fans of the Mac OS, anyone with common sense can clearly see that this ruling is flawed and anti-free market.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm