I just stumbled across a cache of old email, from the heady days of POP boxes and MBX files, and found this old rant about antitrust and technology that I have no memory of writing. It looks like I actually sent it to Orrin Hatch, though.

Dated June 29, 1998:

An Open Letter to Orrin Hatch

Dear Sen. Hatch,
Although I am no longer a constituent, I lived in Utah for several years while attending school at BYU, so I hope this letter reaches you.

I have a few comments regarding the position you’ve taken in the Justice Department’s suit against Microsoft. According to a press report, you recently said of Microsoft:

“I find it rather surprising that any one company would, rather than seeking to prevail on the merits, instead have the hubris to try and use the appropriations process to ‘go on the offensive’ and seek to restrain a federal law enforcement agency that has an obligation to enforce the laws, as was recently reported.”

In fact, it’s companies like Netscape and Novell who decided to use the blunt force of government to get for them what they could not get for themselves. Upon finding they were not successful competitors to Microsoft’s valuable and popular products, they cried foul.

For years, Microsoft and other software firms had gone about the business of making quality products and letting consumers decide which ones they wanted to buy. But now that Microsoft is proving to be a better competitor than they anticipated, Netscape and Novell have decided to go on the offensive — instead of attempting to “prevail on the merits.” It is odd that you should seem so surprised that Microsoft is attempting to fight back by using techniques resembling the ones that Netscape and Novell pioneered. It is you and the companies you’re trying to “protect” that drove Microsoft to have to concern itself with the political climate. Before then, it was able to focus on what it does best: creating and selling software that people want to use.

I applaud the court’s recent decision that recognizes the value in integrated products. What’s disturbing is that Microsoft should have been required to demonstrate this at all. Are the Justice Dept. and the Judiciary so unfamiliar with basic economics that you don’t realize that when consumers receive more products at a higher quality for a lower price, this is beneficial?

At the crux of this public debate is whether Microsoft should be allowed to include Internet Explorer in its Windows operating system. Of course they should! Windows was created by Microsoft and Windows is owned by Microsoft — not the public, not the government, not Netscape. As property of Microsoft, Windows can and should contain whatever Microsoft wants to integrate with it. And we shouldn’t forget, without Microsoft’s successful Windows operating system, Netscape wouldn’t be in millions of homes today; it would still be just a toy used by computer science majors. Netscape owes much of its success to Microsoft, and it returns the favor by asking its Big Brother to beat it up.

Antitrust law is a vague, broad umbrella under which a company can be charged for almost anything. If prices are too high, you’re gouging. If prices are too low, you’re dumping. If prices are the same, you must be in collusion. Antitrust laws can be wielded as a weapon against anyone who’s successful, for whatever reason the government dreams up, and envy of the success of others is a prime motivator in antitrust cases. Those who can’t win in civil competition instead turn to government force to take the bounty for them. And you should be ashamed for helping them. There may be government laws against vague antritrust considerations, but there’s a higher law against coveting your neighbor’s wealth.

I don’t work for Microsoft, and I’m not affiliated with them in any way. My only reason for writing this is my concern that justice be served. Sen. Hatch, if you’re truly interested in justice you should lead an effort to stop the attack of Microsoft. Your current position has no merit, and harms the consumers you purport to help.