Came across this interesting article on marketwatch.com this afternoon, kinda buried down amongst the stories of the day. At issue is whether or not to let lapse the provisions of the antitrust settlement the Justice Department reached with Microsoft five years ago. No fanfare. No chest beating. In a very weird sort of reverse rationalization, a group of states led by California are arguing that enforcing the provisions of that settlement haven't affected Microsoft's market dominance. So therefore, letting the provisions lapse also wouldn't have any effect.

Huh?

If we don't have any murders in my area for the next five years, does that mean then that it's okay to start killing people? Our neighborhood could use some strategic culling.

Is there anyone out there that truly believes that Microsoft isn't guilty of every anti-trust, strong-armed, anti-competitive business tactic ever imagined? Their modus operandi for the last thirty years has been to crush their competition using any and all means necessary, then smile and chant their mantra: "We are not guilty. The accusations against us are unjust." Om.

Like my Cousin Deyo from Queens used to say, "You don't ask. You don't get." Okay, so stockholders want their companies to earn as much money as possible. Shareholders expect them to push the boundaries as far as they can and back off before they get their hands slapped. In Microsoft's case, though, they've taken "pushing the boundaries" to new, dizzying heights.

Let's take just one case in point. You're Microsoft. You have the dominant operating system in computerdom. Want to keep a nasty potential competitor from selling their one product, a web browser? Just include a so-so browser in every copy of your operating system. For people who have a version of the operating system without it, force it on them. Everyone gets it for free. Most people don't know from "Internet Explorer" or "Netscape" or "Opera." They just know "getting on the Internet." Microsoft uses this naivety to their advantage and then claim they don't.

Oh, we can't just give it away anymore? You don't understand, the issue is complex! Internet Explorer, a program that previous Windows owners can just download and run on their systems, is so closely integrated into our system that we can't even begin to think about removing it from our operating system. It's unfair! Said with a straight face, of course.

Oh, you've proven a fifth-grader can remove it? Oh all right, but we won't remove it. We'll just make it so you can remove it if you want to. (Again, naivety to their advantage.) We'll also put a big honking icon on your desktop so you can't miss ours first.

Oh, that's not fair? Okay, we'll bury our icon back with the all of the others. But if you go to the Display control panel and choose what icons to put on your desktop, we'll display ours right next to four important system icons to infer how important it really is. We won't allow any other browser manufacturer to do that. We'll also put an automatic update system on your computer and force you to get the latest versions of our browser whether you want them or not. (Well, "force" is a strong word. "Really, Really Strongly Encourage." I only wish they did that with crap I need or want, like device drivers that actually work.) And every time you get a new version of our browser, we'll ask you innocently if you really meant for some other nasty browser to be the default.

Oh, we can't do that? ... On and on and on. Relentlessly.

The "Foundation for Economic Education," ("fee".org, get it?) has the cajones to say that not only is prosecuting Microsoft wrong, it's downright immoral. It's unpatriotic! That one made me laugh. I wonder whose back pocket they're in.

When Microsoft finally did get their hands slapped, hard, they promised to do better. We'll be good from now on, really! At about the same time, they created a "Trustworthy Computing" division. With its own Vice President and everything. Trouble is, it has absolutely nothing to do with acting in a trustworthy way. They just promise to be better about communicating their arcane one-sided user agreements, keeping your information private (and all to themselves), trying to keep Windows from blue screening quite so much and plugging some of the holes in Windows security that you could drive tanks through.

So, if you don't believe enough in Microsoft's innocence, a corporation whose founder is the richest man in the world might only make a trillion dollars next year. Freedom as we know it will disappear. C'mon, say it with me: "I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!"