Last week, I had to decide whether to pay tribute to Satan. I'm not entirely unhappy with my decision, and I may have saved my soul.
First, relax. This doesn't enter the contentious debate on the existence of God that has recently devoured many inches in these editorial pages.
No, this is about software.
I was getting one of those new, nifty flat-screen iMacs for home. But my workplace is entirely run on Wintel boxes. I've used and maintained both platforms. Each has strengths and weaknesses. (I've even had friends at both Apple and Microsoft.) I knew, though, that I wanted the ease, integrated software and hardware and reliability of the iMac, together with the new multimedia authoring programs, all at a decent price--and my technical side wanted to tinker with the Mac's new Unix-based operating system.
However, to move work from office to home and back, I can't use just text. I need to freely move spreadsheets and presentations to and from my Windows-only office. So I had to consider buying Microsoft Office for Mac.
Largely because of its long history of unfair trade practices, the entity spelled "Microsoft" is pronounced in some quarters as "Satan." They've violated many agreements with regulatory agencies and been found guilty of severe violations of antitrust laws.
Microsoft claims a history of technical innovation, which it apparently believes justifies its freedom to act with impunity. But even if that logic were valid, this claim is disprovable: Bill Gates and company have profited from luck and clever strategies, not innovation.
Their first success came in the early 1980s, when they bluffed IBM into believing that then-tiny Microsoft could supply the operating system for the new IBM personal computer. In fact, Microsoft had no such product; but they knew of a program (QDOS) that would do the job and bought the work for a few thousand dollars, keeping secret the fact that they'd signed a licensing deal with IBM worth millions. It was a business practice of questionable honesty, but hardly novel.
Essentially all of Microsoft's further progress was due to four factors: 1) the explosive sales of IBM PC as they were used to increase corporate efficiency, led by IBM's marketing division and slavish corporate devotion to "industry standards;" 2) the work of Compaq and others to reverse-engineer the IBM PCs to make their own, which was defined as successful because they would run everything the IBM PC could, including MS-DOS, further driving MS-DOS sales; 3) the clever business practice of buying the most successful software companies, rolling them into Microsoft--thereby instantly improving their product without actual innovation--and gaining customers (If the other company refused to sell, Microsoft released a copy of the successful product and gave it away for free--second-rate, but free); and 4) repeated victories in lawsuits, or disregard of legal orders after a defeat.
Thanks to all of these reasons, Microsoft severely damaged or eliminated many engines of competition and innovation in the PC industry, while gaining immense wealth and power--which it then repeatedly used in illegal ways to further its gains.
Given that nasty, brutish and long corporate history, one can understand why Microsoft might be called "Satan." It despises competition, stoops to dishonest and illegal actions and wants a piece of everyone's soul--er, wallet. Most annoying to consumers, its products are second-rate industry standards; they don't need to be first rate, because they're the standard. Conformity is the principal selling point, and the outlandish price of Microsoft Office doubtlessly stems from that very monopoly.
So last week I considered whether to buy Office, a decision complicated by a friend who offered me a copy of the CD he had, for free.
Should I unethically use an illegal copy of a program? Or should I legitimately buy a product made by a company whose conduct was not only unethical, but illegal? Was it actually good--a form of civil disobedience--to break my own code of honest conduct in order to illegally use a product I needed because of Microsoft's illegal conduct?
If I bought the product, was I endorsing an unethical company? If I stole it, was I no better than them?
I lingered in this moral morass for a couple of days, before finally making my decision: Just because someone else did wrong, doesn't justify my doing so. Two wrongs don't make a right. I can only do what I know is right. I will trust the legal system to sanction Microsoft properly, and if it doesn't, I'll never buy a product from Satan again.
Now, I've got the product I needed, and it works no better or worse than I expected.
So I paid my tribute to Satan, but I may have saved my soul.
Edward Benson is a Durham resident.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.