It is not uncommon for people, institutions and even nation-states to harbor deep seeded hatred and resentment for the successful, likely attributable to their own personal failures as individuals. For some time now the EU, has been ruthlessly going after Microsoft Corporation on a host of charges stemming from the argument that Microsoft is “abusing its monopoly” in the area of personal computing. The supposition is laughable. Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. A fundamental tenet of economics holds that a monopoly characterizes a market environment in which there is only one source for a good or service, and thus no market competition for the supply of that good or service. This supposition does not apply to the desktop computer market, nor has it ever, since Microsoft entered that arena in the mid-1970s and with the first production of Windows in 1985, Microsoft has always been one of many players in a crowded field. For years users had a plethora of OS choices.

Early computer users had a choice of Unix, CP/M, later OS/2 and of course operating systems by Commodore and Amiga, not to mention the Mac OS. Today those choices continue with Linux, Solaris and the venerable Mac. While it is true that many players in this field have long since retreated, their retreat is can be attributed to their own failures, as Microsoft developed solutions favored by the market. Microsoft should not be punished simply because other companies failed adapt and lost their competitive edge.

To the European Union, such facts are irrelevant, in their mind, Microsoft as the world’s largest software maker, by far, is inherently wrong and must therefore provide a level playing field for its competitors by releasing trade secrets, which will allow those competitors to gain an upper hand. Initially Microsoft sought to fight the move, but under significant threats from European regulators to impose daily fines on the software giant, Microsoft has relented to pressure and will release the source code to its popular Windows operating system. This capitulation is a defeat for the concept of free enterprise and even strikes at the foundation of intellectual property rights.

No company, no matter how liked or reviled, should be compelled to reveal trade secrets in order to boost the position of a competitor. This would no more make sense if the case were Toyota who developed a new fuel injection system that boosted automobile efficiency 100%. Certainly the development of such technology would give Toyota a competitive advantage should the government therefore force Toyota to make this technology open to the public? Of course not, any more than the government should force Grandma to give up her cherished cookie recipe. This is nonsense of the highest caliber.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FBS0D80.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc