It is expected that the European Commission will soon impose 2m euros ($2.5m) a day fine on the world’s largest software company, ostensibly for failing to implement a recent antitrust ruling against that company. In 2004, the EU ordered Microsoft to supply its competitors with access to the Windows source code. Since the warning from the EU in December, Microsoft has haggled with the commission over various details of the plan…The ruling, however, flies in the face of the spirit of free enterprise and punishes Microsoft unfairly.

No other company in the world, with the possible exception of Wal-Mart, faces such attacks. European regulators have noted that they fear current and future Windows operating systems may inhibit the ability of consumers to use competing applications on their windows platforms. If Microsoft were foolish enough to prevent customers from choosing which applications they can and can’t use on windows that should be their right. The premise that a firm must work cooperatively with its competitors is nonsense.

Consumers in the computer market have a wide array of options when it comes to choosing applications and operating systems. There should be no obligation on Microsoft’s part to give a competitive advantage to its rivals or create new ones. Microsoft has every right to create a proprietary operating system compatible only with Microsoft software, if that is their choice.
Contrary to the media and popular opinion, Microsoft is not a monopoly, as there are numerous alternatives to Microsoft products in the market, including: the Mac OS, Solaris, Linux, as well as many lesser known competitors. Requiring Microsoft to open its source code, (i.e., corporate secrets and patents) to its competitors is tantamount to state sponsored theft. The European Commission wouldn’t dream of compelling BMW or Mercedes to give consumers similar choices when purchasing an automobile, even though they dominate the European luxury market. If a consumer is unhappy with the BMW powertrain or other amenities, they can’t opt for Cadillac components.

In a true free market system, which Europe clearly is not, businesses compete on the merits of their products. Microsoft commands a dominant market position because its competitors failed to innovate and market their products appropriately, where as Microsoft produced a product, which consumers were willing to purchase. Perhaps if folks like Gary Killdall and Dan Bricklin or the people at Xerox had greater marketing savvy they too could be among the wealthiest in the world.

The current case against Microsoft is nothing more than an excuse to punish success and is no more justified than it would be to compel, GE to use Maytag compressors in its refrigeration products.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5120536.stm

Other Important Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032900417.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/12/microsoft-in-hot-water-with-euagain.html
http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/03/stroll-down-lets-suppose-lane.html