The ongoing antitrust battle between the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation presents technical communicators with two ethical questions: 1) Is it right, good, or fair for Microsoft to give away its Internet Explorer browser? 2) If Microsoft gains monopoly control over the PC browser market, will this be good for us? In this article, I exam these questions using traditional rights-based ethical theory (Kant), utilitarianism, and John Rawls' principles of justice, concluding that it is neither good nor fair for a company having a near-monopoly over a market to sell products below fair market value, nor is it good that one company stands to gain monopoly control over the PC browser market.
When the discussion turned to Netscape, one Intel executive, who asked not to be identified, recalled Martiz [Paul Martiz, Microsoft Group Vice President, Platforms & Application] saying: “We are going to cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free” [1].
“We're giving away a pretty good browser as part of the operating system. How long can they survive selling it?”—Statement by Steve Ballmer, Microsoft President and CEO [2].
“Our business model works even if all Internet software is free,” says Mr. Gates. “We are still selling operating systems.” Netscape, in contrast, is dependent upon its Internet software for profits, he points out.—Statements by Bill Gates, Microsoft Chairman [3].
Only a monopolist could study a competitor and destroy its business by giving away products—Statement by Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems Chairman [4].
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LohrS. and MarkoffJ., Why Microsoft Takes Hard Line With Government, New York Times, January 12, 1998. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.nytimes.com/archives/
DuBoffR., Accumulation and Power: An Economic History of the United States, M. E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, New York, 1989.
10.
VelasquezM., Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (4th Edition), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1998.
11.
Dominance in Web Navigation Involves Both Market Share and Mind Share Battles, ComputerWorld, April 11, 1998. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.computerworld.com/inc/buzz
U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, Petition By The United States For An Order To Show Cause Why Respondent Microsoft Corporation Should Not Be Found In Civil Contempt, United States Department of Justice, October 20, 1997. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases3/micros2/1236.htm
17.
U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, Memorandum Of The United States In Support Of Petition For An Order To Show Cause Why Respondent Microsoft Corporation Should Not Be Found in Civil Contempt, United States Department of Justice, October 20, 1997. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases3/micros2/1237.htm
18.
U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, Consent Decree, Civil Action 94–1564 (SS), United States Department of Justice, July 1994. [Online]. Available URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/microsoft/0047.htm
DeLamarterR., Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse of Power, Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1986.
26.
MarkelM., Ethics and Technical Communication: A Case for Foundational Approaches, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 40: 4, pp. 284–298, 1997.
27.
PorterJ. E., Developing a Postmodern Ethics of Rhetoric and Composition, in Defining the New Rhetories, EnosT. and BrownS. C. (eds.), Sage, Newbury, California, pp. 207–226, 1993.
28.
HabermasJ., Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification, in The Communicative Ethics Controversy, BenhabibS. and DallmayrF., (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 60–110, 1990.
29.
KantI., Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Great Books of the Western World, University of Chicago/Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.
30.
BenthamJ., A Fragment on Government and an Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967.
31.
MillJ. S., Utilitarianism, in On Liberty and Utilitarianism, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992.
32.
MaresJ., The Semiconductor Agreements: A Glance Back, a Look Ahead, Business America, 109: 19, pp. 8–11, August 15 and 29, 1988.
