The EU shows its true, evil face
This is it. The masks are off now. But very few remain who dare to see what was hidden behind them.
The European Union had confirmed the fine of 497 million euros to Microsoft for the alleged abuse of its monopoly. Microsoft is now forced to reveal its software secrets to the competition. The lawyers see this as a great victory and others claim that it “creates a level playing field”. Level for whom? For everyone? It doesn’t seem to be level for Microsoft.
But what is Microsoft really being punished for? Did they steal something; or have they defrauded anyone? No, the Commission is clear on this, Microsoft is being punished for asserting itself on the market. Putting it more explicitly, Microsoft is being punished for offering us free Web browsers, free media players, free updates and security fixes, etc. It is not being punished because they are evil, but because their operating systems run 90% of the world’s computers, and because with these operating systems users get truckloads of free stuff, such as what I mentioned above; it is being punished because it saves its users the trouble of downloading all those tools, or having to buy it for additional money; in other words, Microsoft is being punished because it is so good.
Microsoft is, among other things, being forced to distribute its operating system without some of these tools. Now just think about this for a minute. Let’s say you get your new computer delivered at home. So, now you want to watch a video on it. But hey, there’s no Media Player installed. You couldn’t afford it. But there are free players on-line; the Internet is virtually crawling with them. So you try to find it, but hey again – your browser’s not there! Haven’t they used to install those for free? In any case, you don’t have it, so you have to get it from your friend or buy a next issue of some software magazine which you’re probably not interested in reading, just to get your free copy.
So yo do that, and now you’re connected. You type the search terms into whatever search engine you use and it spews out hundreds of thousands results. And you click the link, you download the software, you install it. Suddenly, your computer seems to behave oddly. Curiously enough, the program you downloaded doesn’t seem to play videos, and there’s an odd looking porno ad rotating on it constantly. You think it might be a virus – but you can’t know, because you don’t have any anti-virus protection. At some point, you remember, Windows had a firewall of its own. Now it doesn’t. So you go and download your brand new anti-virus and a firewall. These too can be found free, but you think to yourself that you might just end up with another virus, so you buy yourself something just to make sure. Besides, it’s a known brand, say Norton.
Norton finds your virus, isolates it, but recommends also that you download Microsoft’s security patches. But when you go and do that, you realize you can’t. And then it hits you that Microsoft was once forbidden to further distribute free patches for its operating system, because they make their software more competitive on the market than when it was first launched; thus, Microsoft has to charge their users for these fixes, so as to make people more “motivated” to buy lesser software from other companies.
Well, the story may go on and on. What does this mean for the end user? More and more trouble. The story may be a bit exaggerated – that’s clearly not the situation that will arise directly from this verdict, but it is a precedent that opens the doors to such a future. But what is at the root of such a verdict? They claim it creates “level playing field” and that it “restores conditions for fair competition”. The question is again – for whom? Whoever it is, this decision, being a precedent, will most certainly level the field – into market statism.
Consider this idea of competition as a flat panel. You have certain areas on that panel, each representing a company. The size of an area represents how much of the market each company holds. It seems that the idea of leveling the playing field means that each of these areas is of the same size. Let it be so. Now, consider that one of these companies has hired a genius in its field, who invents a completely new kind of product or service that the company he works for can sell, and which can also have great success on the market. Normally, this genius will want to receive additional payment for such an invention, but in this game called the “level playing field” he simply can’t do that. By laws he must give his secret for free to all the companies on the board – otherwise his own company, or the company he works for, will start taking up more and more space on the panel as more and more users will want this new, brilliant product.
What do the laws of this so-called fair play do to this man? They say “No, you can’t have the fruits of your labor; you must selflessly share with others because the ‘playing field’ must be ‘level’.” In other words, the genius of this man is stifled; he is being told to conform to the majority.
Precedents such as this, as is clear, enslave man and that which is best within him – his rational thought, his creativity, his desire to improve his life and to live it to the best of his ability.
The lawyers are overjoyed by the verdict; they are overjoyed by the fact that they can attack the good of man in this perverted way. This is what I mean when I say that the masks are off. The goal of the looters who brought this about isn’t to help anyone. By the above scenario, which is bound to happen if such terrible trend of punishing the good continues, their goal is to destroy the achievers, in this case Microsoft, and by consequence, whether they are aware of it or not, make the lives more difficult for everyone. They have won the precedent which allows them to regroup, organize and make further, even viler attacks on that which is best in man.
Let’s take another look at what this decision really means. They say that stopping Microsoft from distributing its own free software with its own operating systems will create more choices on the market. What exactly does this mean? It means absolutely nothing. There already is a wide variety of software on the Internet which does exactly the same thing that Microsoft’s products do, so the users have plenty options to begin with. Oh, but, the story continues, it’s not just about having a choice, it’s also about making one. Microsoft is actually being punished for allegedly making that choice for many people by offering them their product for free.
Pardon me if I’m wrong, but are the majority of people mindless drones who make do with whatever is shoved into their lives? That’s what the above suggests – that people are unable to make their own choice about what software they are going to use for whatever purpose; that they are unable to see the drawbacks and the benefits of one piece of software and the other; that they are not able to judge for themselves which of these two programs are better for what they will use the software; and ultimately that they are not able to make choices in order to improve their lives. Instead, it suggests, they take what they get and keep quiet about it, so the courts must step in to speak on their behalf.
It is true – Windows Media Player covers the needs of video and music playing for most people, and it even has some neat other tools. And it is true that people, once they have this particular player, will not seek anything else – because they are satisfied. But is this what Microsoft is being punished – for making its customers satisfied? If that’s it, then we’re back at punishing the good for being the good. Is Microsoft being punished for going to great lengths to satisfy its customers? Then it’s the story of punishing the good for wanting to be better. Or is it being punished for offering a bundle of products, all virtually for free, which seem to be good enough for a vast majority of people? Then the verdict is a punishment of the good for trying to be the best.
Whatever it is, there is no escaping the fact that with this decision, the Commission, and the European Union has shown its true face; the face mingled with the raging hatred of man and the best within him; the face of the looter and that of the destroyer of values. This is a small victory for them, but it is also a foothold. They’ve come this far today; but who knows how far they will dare to go tomorrow.
For all these reasons, I am denouncing this decision and I am calling upon everyone with the slightest light of love for man and life, to do the same. Not because of Microsoft, or because you feel like it, but because you know that the verdict is all wrong – that it is an attack on the best within man; an attack on the achievers, not the looters; and because it is an attack staged by the looters.
