Igno-Bill tactics?

From the Standard Oils of the turn of the century to the AT&Ts of the early '80s, the struggle between big business and the federal government has shaped American politics and the American economy for the past 100 years. This week begins the saga of the United States v. Microsoft Corporation, a defining moment in the interpretation of anti-trust laws. This case, more than any other, has the potential to change the evolution and development of personal computers for the remainder of the Information Age.

To some, Microsoft represents a hulking Tyrannosaurus rex, eating up smaller technology companies while lumbering its way to global domination. Others, though, see the federal government as a loping brontosaurus, trying to stomp on the nimble ape before it evolves into something more advanced.

In the center of all this brouhaha is Microsoft's Windows 98. The technological superpower integrated its own Internet browser, Internet Explorer, into its newest operating system. The question is whether Microsoft is exploiting its monopoly power in the operating systems market to leverage monopoly power over Internet browsers. The answer is not so simple: This trial must discover whether Microsoft is defining the progress of technology just because it has the power to do so. In other words, is Microsoft conveniently bundling its products under the guise of progress while intending to unfairly gain a horizontal monopoly? Is Bill Gates fighting the forces of our market-free entry and exit-that allowed him his fortune; or is he simply using the properties of the free market to his competitive advantage?

The trial is replete with such difficult issues, each complicated by its necessary ties to often confusing technology. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Jackson must recognize that these intricacies make this case-and these questions-unique. He must mold and control the trial with this fact in mind, and realize his decision has the power to set a precedent: Is monopoly good for the technology industry?

These questions must be examined as we steam toward the prime of the Information Age-more of them will surely crop up. But no matter who is deemed the winner when all is said and done, Microsoft will be a hobbled company. But the benefit of these proceedings to the American people, the successful processes of justice and government which they represent and their ultimate findings will outweigh any amputated budget lines or bruised egos at Microsoft.

The American justice system now must reassert its role in the market, as technology redefines the way our country does business.

At its best, Jackson's U.S. District Court will spur the development and ensure the quality of technological change forever. At its worst, the court will handicap a flourishing industry as it reaches its crescendo.